Salazar v. Carver et al, No. 1:2021cv00531 - Document 7 (S.D.W. Va. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 5 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; denying plaintiff's [1 at pp. 3-4] Motion Requesting Waiving Exhaustion; denying plaintiff's 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order; dismissing plaintiff's 1 Complaint and directing the Clerk to remove this case from the court's active docket. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 3/22/2022. (cc: plaintiff, pro se; counsel of record) (arb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Salazar v. Carver et al Doc. 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD SUE SALAZAR, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:21-00531 WARDEN CARVER, 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.A. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn submitted to the court his Findings and Recommendation on September 30, 2021, in which he recommended that the district court deny plaintiff’s “Motion Requesting Waiving Exhaustion,” deny plaintiff’s “Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Pursuant to § 65(b),” 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 Aboulhosn’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 allotted time period. Having reviewed the Findings and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn, the court adopts the findings and recommendations contained therein. Accordingly, the court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s “Motion Requesting Waiving Exhaustion,” DENIES plaintiff’s “Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Pursuant to § 65(b),” DISMISSES plaintiff’s complaint, and directs the Clerk to remove this case from the court’s active docket. The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to plaintiff, pro se, and counsel of record. IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of March, 2022. 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.
