Kaufman v. United States of America, No. 1:2012cv00237 - Document 50 (S.D.W. Va. 2014)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court ADOPTS the 49 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge VanDervort; DENIES the United States' 37 Motion for Summary Judgment and refers this matter back to Magistrate Judge VanDervort for further proceedings. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 1/8/2014. (cc: Plaintiff, Pro Se and counsel of record) (arb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD JEAN ELIZABETH KAUFMAN, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL CASE NO. 1:12-0237 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of findings and recommendations regarding disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge VanDervort submitted his Proposed Findings and Recommendation ( PF&R ) to the court on December 19, 2013, in which he recommended that the district court deny the United States motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 37). In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties were allotted fourteen days, plus three mailing days, in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge VanDervort s PF&R. The failure of any party to file such objections constitutes a waiver of such party s right to a de novo review by this court. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989). 1 The parties failed to file any objections to the Magistrate Judge s PF&R within the seventeen-day period. Having reviewed the PF&R filed by Magistrate Judge VanDervort, the court adopts the findings and recommendation contained therein. Accordingly, the court adopts the factual and legal analysis contained within the PF&R, DENIES the United States motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 37), and refers this matter back to Magistrate Judge VanDervort for further proceedings. The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to plaintiff, pro se, and counsel of record. It is SO ORDERED this 8th day of January, 2014. ENTER: David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.