Flowers v. Mastercuts, No. 6:2013cv20946 - Document 16 (S.D.W. Va. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER accepting and incorporating the 15 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge and orders judgment consistent with the findings and recommendations; the court DISMISSES the plaintiff's 2 complaint without prejudice, and directing this action removed from the docket. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 6/18/2014. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (taq)

Download PDF
Flowers v. Mastercuts Doc. 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA PARKERSBURG DIVISION CHAD FLOWERS, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:13-cv-20946 MASTERCUTS, et al., Defendants. ORDER This action was referred to the Honorable Cheryl A. Eifert, 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(b)(1)(B). The Magistrate Judge has submitted findings of fact and has recommended that the court DISMISS without prejudice the plaintiff’s complaint [Docket 2]. Neither party has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. A district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This court is not, however, 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). As the parties have not filed objections in this case, the court accepts and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and orders judgment consistent Dockets.Justia.com with the findings and recommendations. The court DISMISSES the plaintiff’s complaint [Docket 2] without prejudice, and DIRECTS this action to be removed from the docket. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: June 18, 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.