Campbell v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources et al, No. 2:2011cv00638 - Document 6 (S.D.W. Va. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER adopting the 5 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge, dismissing with prejudice plaintiff's 2 COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS, PERJURY, LEGAL MALPRACTICE In Re: Minor Grand-Children, and directing that this action be removed from the docket. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 6/28/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmh)

Download PDF
Campbell v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources et al Doc. 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION BARBARA CAMPBELL Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-cv-00638 WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES, et al., Defendants. 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 a Proposed Findings and Recommendation [Docket 5] recommending that the court DISMISS the plaintiff=s Complaint [Docket 2] with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). Neither party has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. A district court Ashall 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 raised. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). As the parties have not filed objections in this case, the court accepts and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and orders judgment consistent Dockets.Justia.com with the findings and recommendations. Accordingly the court DISMISSES the plaintiff=s Complaint [Docket 2] with prejudice and DIRECTS that this action be removed from the docket. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: June 28, 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.