Gentry v. MCM, et al, No. 1:2012cv07695 - Document 21 (S.D.W. Va. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 20 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION by the Magistrate Judge; and ORDERS that the Plaintiff's 17 MOTION to Dismiss is GRANTED, the Plaintiff's 1 , pp. 8-11 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and this matter is REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 2/19/2013. (certified cc: Magistrate Judge VanDervort, counsel of record and any unrepresented party) (mjp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BLUEFIELD DIVISION TISON JUSTICE GENTRY, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-cv-07695 MCM, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff=s Motion of Dismissal (Document 17) filed on January 4, 2013, as well as the Defendants Response to Plaintiff s Motion to Dismiss (Document 19) filed on January 15, 2013. By Standing Order (Document 2) entered on November 16, 2012, this action was referred to the Honorable R. Clarke VanDervort, 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 January 29, 2013, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 20) wherein it is recommend that this Court grant the Plaintiff s Motion to Dismiss, dismiss the Plaintiff s Complaint without prejudice, and remove this matter from the Court s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by February 15, 2013. 1 No 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 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). 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 the Plaintiff s Motion to Dismiss (Document 17) is GRANTED, the Plaintiff s Complaint (Document 1, pp. 8-11) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and this matter is REMOVED from the Court s docket. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge VanDervort, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 February 19, 2013
]]>
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.
