Owens v. Simmons et al, No. 5:2014cv26939 - Document 17 (S.D.W. Va. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 7 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by the Magistrate Judge, and ORDERS that the Plaintiff's Bivens claim against Defendant Simmons be DISMISSED, and that this matter be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings on the Plaintiff's Bivens claim against the remaining Defendants. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 11/10/2014. (cc: Magistrate Judge VanDervort; attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Owens v. Simmons et al Doc. 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION LEROY OWENS, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-cv-26939 JASON SIMMONS, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Plaintiff filed a Bivens action Complaint (Document 4) in this matter on October 16, 2014. Therein, the Plaintiff names as Defendants: Inmate Jason Simmons; Warden Joe Coakley; Correctional Officer Romano; and Correctional Officer Frozen. By Standing Order (Document 5) entered on October 16, 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 October 20, 2014, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 7) wherein it is recommended that this Court dismiss the Plaintiff’s Bivens claim against Defendant Simmons, and refer the matter back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings on the Plaintiff’s Bivens claim against the remaining Defendants. Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by November 6, 1 Dockets.Justia.com 2014. Neither party has timely filed objectio to the M N y f ons Magistrate Jud dge=s Proposed Finding and gs Recomme endation. The Court is not required to review, under a de n T d u novo or any other standa the factu or ard, ual legal con nclusions of the magistrat judge as to those porti t te o ions of the fi indings or recommendati to ion which no objections are address o sed. Thoma v. Arn, 47 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) Failure to file as 74 , ). timely ob bjections con nstitutes a waiver of de novo review and a party right to ap w n w y’s ppeal this Co ourt=s Order. 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); see also Snyd v. Rideno 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); 2 der our, d 6 United St tates v. Schr ronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4 Cir. 1984 4th 4). Accordingly, the Cour ADOPT and in A rt TS ncorporates herein the findings and e recomme endation of the Magistrate Judge as conta f ained in th Proposed Findings and he d Recomme endation, an ORDERS that the Pla nd S aintiff’s Bive claim ag ens gainst Defend Simmo be dant ons DISMISSED, and that this mat be REF t tter FERRED b ack to the M Magistrate J Judge for fu urther proceedin on the Plaintiff’s Biv ngs P vens claim against the re a emaining De efendants. The Court DI T IRECTS the Clerk to se a certifie copy of th Order to Magistrate J e end ed his Judge VanDerv vort, counsel of record, and any unre l a epresented pa arty. ENTER: 2 ber Novemb 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.
