Mack v. United States of America et al, No. 1:2020cv00354 - Document 70 (S.D.W. Va. 2021)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 62 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; granting defendants' 44 Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment; and removing this action from the court's docket. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 9/20/2021. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (arb)

Download PDF
Mack v. United States of America et al Doc. 70 Case 1:20-cv-00354 Document 70 Filed 09/20/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 608 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD LEONTE MACK, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-00354 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn for submission of findings and recommendation regarding disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn submitted to the court his Proposed Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) on May 21, 2021, in which he recommended that the court grant defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 62.) In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties were allotted fourteen days and three mailing days in which to file objections to the PF&R. The failure of any party to file such objections within the time allowed 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 Case 1:20-cv-00354 Document 70 Filed 09/20/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 609 Neither party filed any objections to the PF&R within the required time period. 1 Accordingly, the court adopts the PF&R as follows: 1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 44) is GRANTED; and 2. This action is removed from the court’s docket. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties. IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of September, 2021. ENTER: David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge 1 Since the filing of the PF&R, plaintiff has filed multiple documents, but none of them can reasonably be construed as objections to the PF&R. (See ECF Nos. 63-69.) They consist of notes or ledgers concerning plaintiff’s health. (See id.) 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.