-JSK Charlton v. Rubenstein et al, No. 2:2010cv00112 - Document 35 (N.D.W. Va. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING OPINION/REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is ORDERED that Magistrate Kaull's 33 Opinion/Report and Recommendation is adopted; Defendants' 27 Motion to Dismiss is granted; and dismisses with prejudice Plaintiff's 1 Comp laint. This matter is ORDERED stricken from the active docket. The Clerk shall enter a separate judgment in favor of the Defendants. Signed by Chief Judge John Preston Bailey on 8/8/11. (Attachments: # 1 Certified Mail Receipt label)(copy Plaintiff [7011 0470 0001 4610 0510])(cnd)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA ELKINS FREDRICK CHARLTON, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10-CV-112 (BAILEY) JAMES RUBENSTEIN, WILLIAM W. FOX, LUIS ALMASE, AND JAEL FULTON, Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING OPINION/REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On this day, the above-styled matter came before this Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge John S. Kaull. By Local Rule, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Kaull for submission of a report and a recommendation ( R&R ). Magistrate Judge Kaull filed his R&R on July 12, 2011 [Doc. 33]. In that filing, the magistrate judge recommends that this Court grant the defendants Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 27] and to dismiss the plaintiff s civil rights Complaint [Doc. 1] with prejudice. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c), this Court is required to make a de novo review of those portions of the magistrate judge s findings to which objection is made. However, 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, 1 150 (1985). In addition, failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the right to appeal this Court's Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). Here, objections to Magistrate Judge Kaull s R & R were due within fourteen (14) days of receipt, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The docket reflects that service was accepted on July 13, 2011. See Doc. 34. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review the report and recommendation for clear error. Upon careful review of the report and recommendation, it is the opinion of this Court that the magistrate judge s Opinion/Report and Recommendation [Doc. 33] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge s report. As such, this Court hereby GRANTS the defendants Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 27] and, accordingly, DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the plaintiff s Complaint [Doc. 1]. Therefore, this matter is hereby ORDERED STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court. Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to enter a separate judgment in favor of the defendants. It is so ORDERED. The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to any counsel of record and to mail a copy to the pro se plaintiff. 2 DATED: August 8, 2011. 3

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.