Steerman v. Moats et al, No. 1:2013cv02769 - Document 7 (S.D.W. Va. 2015)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 5 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort, DENIES Plaintiff's 1 Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs, DISMISSES Plaintiff's 2 Complaint, and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the Court's docket. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 12/10/2015. (cc: Plaintiff, Pro Se and counsel of record) (arb)

Download PDF
Steerman v. Moats et al Doc. 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD JASON KENT STEERMAN, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No: 1:13-02769 ALAN D. MOATS, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the court are plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees or costs, (Doc. No. 1), and complaint. (Doc. No. 2). By Standing Order, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of findings and recommendations regarding disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). 4). (Doc. No. Magistrate Judge VanDervort submitted to the court his Proposed Findings and Recommendation on November 12, 2015, in which he recommended that the district court deny plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees or costs, dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, and remove this matter from the court’s docket. (Doc. No. 5). In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties were allotted fourteen days, plus three mailing days, in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge 1 Dockets.Justia.com VanDervort’s Findings and Recommendation. The failure to file such objections constitutes a waiver of the right to a de novo review by this court. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff failed to file any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation within the seventeen-day period. Having reviewed the Findings and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge VanDervort, the court adopts the findings and recommendation contained therein. Accordingly, the court hereby ADOPTS the factual and legal analysis contained within the PF&R, DENIES plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees or costs, (Doc. No. 1), DISMISSES plaintiff’s complaint, (Doc. No. 2), and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the court’s docket. The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and plaintiff, pro se. It is SO ORDERED this 10th day of December, 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.