Sutton v. Brown et al, No. 2:2011cv00522 - Document 30 (S.D.W. Va. 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting and incorporating the 29 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; directing that the court dismisses the 1 Complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 2/16/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (cbo)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION JOSHUA LAMONT SUTTON, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-cv-00522 RENCA JOYCE BROWN, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This action was referred to the Honorable Mary E. Stanley, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission to this court of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The Magistrate Judge has submitted findings of fact and has recommended that the court FIND that the plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action and DISMISS the complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The plaintiff has not filed objections to the Magistrate Judge s findings and recommendation. A district court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This court is not, however, required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). As the plaintiff has not filed objections in this case, the court adopts and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The court DISMISSES the complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: February 16, 2012

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.