Smith v. Shaw, No. 5:2009cv01001 - Document 5 (S.D.W. Va. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 4 Proposed Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and ORDERS that the Petitioner's 1 letter-form Complaint be DISMISSED and that this matter be REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 5/18/2012. (cc: Magistrate Judge VanDervort; attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION DONALD PHILLIP SMITH, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-cv-01001 JOBARD SHAW, Defendant, DAVID BERKEBILE, Interested Party. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Court has reviewed the Petitioner=s September 14, 2009 letter-form Complaint requesting the initiation of criminal proceedings against another inmate based on the inmate s publication of restricted personal information (Document 1).1 By Standing Order (Document 2) entered on September 14, 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. On April 25, 2012, the Magistrate Judge submitted Proposed Findings and 1 A review of the Court s docket in this matter reveals that Plaintiff neither paid the filing fee for initiation of this civil action, nor sought permission to proceed informa pauperis. The pertinent documentation for doing so was mailed to the Plaintiff on September 14, 2009. 1 Recommendation (Document 4) wherein it is recommended that this Court dismiss Plaintiff s letter-form Complaint and remove this matter from the Court s docket. Neither party has timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation. 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 Petitioner=s 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). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS, for these reasons, that the Petitioner s letter-form Complaint (Document 1) be DISMISSED, and that this matter be REMOVED from the Court s docket. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge VanDervort, to counsel of record and to any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 May 18, 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.
