Dalton v. Stephens et al, No. 1:2010cv01296 - Document 7 (S.D.W. Va. 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 6 Proposed Findings and Recommendation entered by Magistrate Judge Eifert. Plaintiff's 1 Complaint is DISMISSED and this case is DISMISSED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 5/22/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (mjp) Modified on 5/22/2012 to correct Magistrate's name associated with case (mjp).

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BLUEFIELD DIVISION 1 STARR DALTON Plaintiff , v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10-cv-01296 BOOKER T. STEPHENS, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff s Complaint [Docket 1] filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. By Standing Order entered September 2, 2010, and filed in this case on November 12, 2010, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (PF&R). Magistrate Judge VanDervort filed his PF&R [Docket 6] on November 15, 2011, recommending that this Court dismiss Plaintiff s Complaint and remove this matter from the Court s docket. 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 the Petitioner 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). In addition, this Court need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the Court to a specific error in the magistrate s proposed findings and recommendations. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Objections to the PF&R in this case were due on December 12, 2011. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Docket 6], DISMISSES Plaintiff s Complaint [Docket 1], and DISMISSES this case from the docket. A separate Judgment Order will enter this day implementing the rulings contained herein. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: May 22, 2012

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.