Prokop v. Mercer County et al, No. 1:2014cv24375 - Document 18 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court adopts Magistrate Judge Tinsley's 15 PF&R as follows: 1) Plaintiff's 1 Complaint, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A, is DISMISSED; 2) Plaintiff 9;s 2 Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, with a waiver of the applicable filing fee is DENIED; and 3) The Clerk is directed to remove this matter from the docket of the Court. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 2/1/2017. (cc: Plaintiff; attys) (mk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Prokop v. Mercer County et al Doc. 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD ROBERT C. PROKOP, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-24375 MERCER COUNTY and STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Standing Order, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and recommendations (“PF&R”) for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (Doc. No. 4.) Magistrate Judge Tinsley submitted to the court his PF&R on September 19, 2016, in which he recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. No. 1), pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A, and deny Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Doc. No. 2), with a waiver of the applicable filing fee. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties were allotted seventeen days in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge Tinsley’s PF&R. The failure of any party to 1 Dockets.Justia.com file such objections within the time allotted 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). Neither party filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s PF&R within the required time period. Accordingly, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Tinsley’s PF&R as follows: 1) Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. No. 1), pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A, is DISMISSED; 2) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Doc. No. 2), with a waiver of the applicable filing fee is DENIED; and 3) The Clerk is directed to remove this matter from the docket of the Court. The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and to Plaintiff. It is SO ORDERED this 1st day of February, 2017. 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.
