Batiste v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al, No. 5:2013cv13565 - Document 62 (S.D.W. Va. 2014)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 56 Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and ORDERS that the Defendants' 27 MOTION to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED, the Plaintiff 9;s 22 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction be DENIED, the Plaintiff's 6 and 7 Complaint be DISMISSED, and this action be REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 7/21/2014. (cc: Magistrate Judge VanDervort; attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION NARSEAL BATISTE, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-cv-13565 FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On June 6, 2013, the Plaintiff filed two complaints (Documents 6 & 7) in this matter. On November 15, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction (Document 22). Subsequently, on December 2, 2013, the Defendants filed Defendants Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (Document 27). By Memorandum Opinion and Order (Document 35) entered on December 16, 2013, this Court ordered that this civil action be 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, with respect to the Plaintiff s Bivens claim against the remaining Defendants in their individual capacities. On June 13, 2014, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 56) wherein it is recommended that this Court grant the Defendants Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, 1 Motion for Summary Judgment (Document 27), deny the Plaintiff s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction (Document 22), dismiss the Plaintiff s complaints (Documents 6 & 7), and remove this action from the Court s docket. Neither party has timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation which were due by July 18, 20141. 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 Defendants Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (Document 27) be GRANTED, the Plaintiff s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction (Document 22) be DENIED, the Plaintiff s complaints (Documents 6 & 7) be DISMISSED, and this action be REMOVED from the Court s docket. 1 Objections to the PF&R were originally due by June 30, 2014. However, by Order entered on June 27, 2014 (Document 59), the Court extended the Plaintiff s objection deadline to July 18, 2014. 2 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: 3 July 21, 2014

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.