Mink v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, No. 5:2017cv02212 - Document 17 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: adopting the 16 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; granting the 4 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, filed by Wal-Mart Stores East, LP; granting the 6 Motion to Dismiss f or Failure to State a Claim, filed by MacCorkle Lavender PLLC; dismissing this matter with prejudice and removing it from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 6/8/2017. (cc: Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn; attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Mink v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP Doc. 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION JAMES MINK, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-cv-02212 WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On March 3, 2017, the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court of Wyoming County, West Virginia. The matter was removed to the United States District Court on April 4, 2017. Pending in the matter are Wal-Mart Stores East, LP’s Motion to Dismiss (Document 4) and MacCorkle Lavender PLLC’s Motion to Dismiss (Document 6). By Standing Order (Document 2) entered on April 4, 2017, this action 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, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On May 17, 2017, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 16) wherein it is recommended that this Court grant the Defendants’ respective motions to dismiss with prejudice, and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by June 5, 2017. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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 Wal-Mart Stores East, LP’s Motion to Dismiss (Document 4) be GRANTED, that MacCorkle Lavender PLLC’s Motion to Dismiss (Document 6) be GRANTED, and that this matter be DISMISSED with prejudice and 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 June 8, 2017
]]>
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.
