Miller v. Ballard et al, No. 2:2013cv15024 - Document 6 (S.D.W. Va. 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 5 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; dismissing the 2 Complaint; denying the 1 Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs; dismissing this case; and directing this matter removed from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 9/23/2016. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION ANDREW MILLER, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-15024 DAVID BALLARD., et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Complaint, (ECF No. 2), and Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (the “Application”), (ECF No. 1). By Standing Order filed in this case on June 20, 2013, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for total pretrial management and submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition. (ECF No. 4.) On July 15, 2016, Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed proposed findings and recommendations for disposition (the “PF&R”), in which he recommends dismissing the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and denying the Application. (ECF No. 5 at 9.) The Court is not 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). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the parties’ right to appeal this Court’s order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). Objections to the PF&R in this case were due by August 1, 2016. (See ECF No. 5 at 9 10.) To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 5), DISMISSES the Complaint, (ECF No. 2), DENIES the Application, (ECF No. 1), DISMISSES this case, and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this matter from the Court’s docket. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Opinion to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: September 23, 2016

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.