Persinger v. Roberts et al, No. 2:2009cv00825 - Document 42 (S.D.W. Va. 2010)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER accepting and incorporating the 40 Proposed Findings and Recommendation; granting the 13 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Dr. Subhash Gajendragadkar, Naomi Roberts and Wexford Health Sources, Inc.; granting the 15 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Aramark Correctional Services, LLC and Terri Coleman; granting the 27 MOTION to Dismiss Allegations, If Any, Regarding Acts Prior to May 1, 2008, filed by Naomi Roberts; granting the 29 MOTION to Dismiss Allegations, If Any, Regarding Acts Prior to May 1, 2008, filed by Dr. Subhash Gajendragadkar; and denying as untimely plaintiff's 41 MOTION for Enlargement of Time, And Re-Newed Motion for Appointment of Counsel. The court DISMISSES the plaintiff's 1 complaint with prejudice, and DIRECTS this action to be removed from the docket. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 8/27/2010. (cc: plaintiff; attys; any unrepresented party) (taq)

Download PDF
Persinger v. Roberts et al Doc. 42 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION ROGER PERSINGER, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09-cv-00825 NAOMI ROBERTS, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This action was referred to the Honorable Mary E. Stanley, 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(b)(1)(B). The Magistrate Judge has submitted findings of fact and has recommended that the court GRANT the Motion to Dismiss filed by Dr. Subhash Gajendragadkar, Naomi Roberts and Wexford Health Sources, Inc. [Docket 13], GRANT the Motion to Dismiss filed by Aramark Correctional Services, LLC and Terri Coleman [Docket 15], GRANT the Motion to Dismiss Allegations, If Any, Regarding Acts Prior to May 1, 2008, filed by Naomi Roberts [Docket 27], and GRANT the Motion to Dismiss Allegations, If Any, Regarding Acts Prior to May 1, 2008, filed by Dr. Subhash Gajendragadkar [Docket 29]. Neither party has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. The failure to object to a magistrate judge’s report may be deemed a waiver of appeal of the substance of the report and the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985); Dockets.Justia.com Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). The court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s findings of fact and recommendations and finds no clear error on the face of the record. Therefore, the court accepts and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and orders judgment consistent with the findings and recommendations. Accordingly, the court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss filed by Dr. Subhash Gajendragadkar, Naomi Roberts and Wexford Health Sources, Inc. [Docket 13], GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss filed by Aramark Correctional Services, LLC and Terri Coleman [Docket 15], GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss Allegations, If Any, Regarding Acts Prior to May 1, 2008, filed by Naomi Roberts [Docket 27], and GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss Allegations, If Any, Regarding Acts Prior to May 1, 2008, filed by Dr. Subhash Gajendragadkar [Docket 29]. The plaintiff filed an untimely Motion for Enlargement of Time, And Re-Newed Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Docket 41]. The court DENIES this motion as untimely. The court DISMISSES the plaintiff’s complaint [Docket 1] with prejudice, and DIRECTS this action to be removed from the docket. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: -2- August 27, 2010

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.