Bailey v. Greene et al, No. 5:2014cv12865 - Document 20 (S.D.W. Va. 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the 19 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS that the Plaintiff's 1 Application to Pr oceed without Prepayment of Fees or Costs be DENIED, the Plaintiff's 3 Complaint be DISMISSED, and this matter be REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 10/18/2016. (cc: USMJ Aboulhosn; attys; any unrepresented party) (msa)

Download PDF
Bailey v. Greene et al Doc. 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION DONEVEN S. BAILEY, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-cv-12865 MS. VICKI GREENE and STEVEN D. CANTERBURY, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On March 21, 2014, the Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed his Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1) and his Complaint (Document 3) in this matter. By Standing Order (Document 4) entered on March 21, 2014, 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. Subsequently, by Order (Document 15) entered on January 6, 2016, the case was referred to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission to this Court of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition. On September 23, 2016, Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 18) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny the Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1), dismiss the 1 Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiff’s Complaint (Document 3), and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by October 11, 2016. 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 Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1) be DENIED, the Plaintiff’s Complaint (Document 3) be DISMISSED, and 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 Aboulhosn, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 October 18, 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.