Richards v. Jim Rubenstein, et al, No. 1:2012cv06268 - Document 12 (S.D.W. Va. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 10 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort; DENIES Plaintiff's 2 Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs; DISMISSES Plaintiff's 1 Complaint and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 10/1/2015. (cc: Plaintiff, Pro Se and counsel of record) (arb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Richards v. Jim Rubenstein, et al Doc. 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD THOMAS RYAN RICHARDS, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-6268 JIM RUBENSTEIN, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of findings and recommendations regarding disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge VanDervort submitted to the court his Findings and Recommendation on August 23, 2013, in which he recommended that the district court deny plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs, dismiss plaintiff's complaint, and remove this matter from the court's docket. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b), the parties were allotted fourteen days, plus three mailing days, in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge VanDervort’s Findings and Recommendation. The failure of any party to file such objections constitutes a waiver of such party's right to a de novo review by this court. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989). Dockets.Justia.com The parties failed to file any objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation within the required time period. Having reviewed the Findings and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge VanDervort, the court adopts the findings and recommendations contained therein. Accordingly, the court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs, DISMISSES plaintiff's complaint for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this matter from the court's docket. The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to plaintiff, pro se, and counsel of record. IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of October, 2015. ENTER: David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge 2
]]>
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.
