Jackson v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al, No. 5:2009cv00560 - Document 9 (S.D.W. Va. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: the Court ADOPTS the 7 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge, ORDERS that Plaintiff's 1 Complaint be DISMISSED, and ORDERS that this matter be removed from its docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 5/9/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION RODNEY L. JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09cv-00560 FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On April 28, 2009, Plaintiff, acting pro se and formerly incarcerated at FCI Beckley in Beckley, West Virginia, filed his Complaint (Document 1) in this matter in the Middle District of Georgia claiming entitlement to relief pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This case was subsequently transferred to this Court. (Documents 2 & 3) By Standing Order (Document 4) entered on May 19, 2009, this action was referred to the Honorable R. Clarke VanDervort, 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). On April 19, 2012, the Magistrate Judge submitted Proposed Findings and Recommendation ( PF&R ) (Document 7), wherein it is recommended that this Court dismiss Plaintiff s Complaint, and remove this matter from the Court s docket. 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 ob bjections con nstitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Pe w w etitioner's rig to appea this ght al Court's Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636( O (b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th a r, 6 Cir.1989); United St tates v. Schr ronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir.19 F 984). In add dition, this C Court need not conduct a de novo review when a party make general an conclusor objections that d p es nd ry do not direct the Court to a specific error in th magistrat he te's propose findings and ed recomme endations. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44 , 47 (4th C Cir.1982). O Objections to the PF&R in this case we due by May 7, 2012. To date, no party has f n ere M . o filed objectio ons. Accordingly, the Cour ADOPT and in A rt TS ncorporates herein the findings and e recomme endation of the Magi f istrate Judg as conta ge ained in th Proposed Findings and he Recomm mendation (D Document 7) and ORD ), DERS that Plaintiff s C Complaint ( (Document 1) be DISMISSED. The Court further ORDERS that this ma C r atter be remo oved from its docket. s The Court DI T IRECTS the Clerk to se a copy o this Orde to counsel of record a to e end of er l and any unrep presented pa arty. ENT TER: 2 May 9, 2012 y
]]>
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.
