Hidalgo v. FBOP et al, No. 5:2011cv00153 - Document 9 (S.D.W. Va. 2014)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the 6 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS that the Plaintiff's 4 Application to Proc eed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs be DENIED, the Plaintiff's 1 Complaint be DISMISSED, and that this matter be REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 1/6/2014. (cc: USMJ VanDervort; attys; any unrepresented party) (msa)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION JUAN HIDALGO, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11-cv-00153 FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff=s Complaint (Document 1) filed on March 9, 2011, and his Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Document 4) filed on March 21, 2011. By Standing Order (Document 2) entered on March 9, 2011, 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 November 21, 2013, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 6) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny the Plaintiff s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, dismiss the Plaintiff s Complaint, and remove this matter from the Court s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by December 9, 20131. 1 The docket reflects that the Proposed Findings and Recommendation mailed to the Plaintiff was 1 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 a party 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 that the Plaintiff s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Document 4) be DENIED, the Plaintiff s 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, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: January 6, 2014 returned as undeliverable on December 2, 2013, and re-mailed to a different address on that date; and subsequently returned as undeliverable on December 12, 2013, and re-mailed to a third address on that date. As of January 5, 2014, no objections had been filed. 2

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.