Fleming v. Inmate Marvin Garrett et al, No. 5:2014cv16419 - Document 6 (S.D.W. Va. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: the Court Adopts and incorporates the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the 5 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and Orders that Plaintiff's 1 Application to Proceed witho ut Prepayment of Fees or Costs filed be Denied and Plaintiff's 2 Complaint be Dismissed and Removed from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 6/10/2014. (cc: Magistrate Judge VanDervort and any unrepresented party) (cds)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION BILLY JAMES FLEMING, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-cv-16419 INMATE MARVN GARRETT, et al. Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff=s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1) and the Plaintiff s Complaint (Document 2) filed in this matter on May 14, 2014. By Standing Order (Document 4) entered on May 15, 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. On May 23, 2014, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 5) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny the Plaintiff=s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1), dismiss the Plaintiff s Complaint (Document 2), and remove this matter from the Court s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by June 9, 2014. 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 Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1) be DENIED, the Plaintiff s Complaint (Document 2) 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 VanDervort counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 June 10, 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.
