Brumfield v. Roberts et al, No. 2:2009cv01223 - Document 30 (S.D.W. Va. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 19 Proposed Findings and Recommendation and denying defendants' 13 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 7/13/2010. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (taq)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Brumfield v. Roberts et al Doc. 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION PAUL BRUMFIELD, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09-cv-01223 NAOMI ROBERTS, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Defendants Naomi Roberts, Suhbash Gajendragakar and Defendant Denominated as Wexford Medical Inc. s Motion to Dismiss [Docket 13]. By Standing Order entered August 1, 2006, and filed in this case on November 6, 2009, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mary E. Stanley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (PF&R). Magistrate Judge Stanley filed her PF&R [Docket 19] on February 16, 2010, recommending that this Court deny the motion of Defendants Roberts, Gajendragakar and Wexford Medical because Plaintiff s complaint sufficiently states a claim upon which relief can be granted against these defendants. The Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Petitioner s right to appeal this Court s Order. 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir.1989); Dockets.Justia.com United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). In addition, this Court need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the Court to a specific error in the magistrate s proposed findings and recommendations. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Objections to the PF&R in this case were due on March 5, 2010. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Docket 13], and DENIES Defendants Naomi Roberts, Suhbash Gajendragakar and Defendant Denominated as Wexford Medical Inc. s Motion to Dismiss [Docket 13]. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 July 13, 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.
