Morris v. Dunn, No. 2:2010cv01034 - Document 11 (S.D.W. Va. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 10 Proposed Findings and Recommendation; dismissing the plaintiff's 2 Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and denying as moot the plaintiff's 1 application to proceed without prepayment of fees. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 2/7/2011. (cc: plaintiff; attys; any unrepresented party) (taq)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Morris v. Dunn Doc. 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION MATTHEW MORRIS, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10-cv-01034 JIMMY A. DUNN, Defendant. 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 proposed findings of fact and has recommended that the court GRANT the Motion to Dismiss [Docket 6], DISMISS this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and DENY as moot the plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees [Docket 1]. Neither party has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s proposed 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 Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983); Campbell v. United States D. Ct. N.D. Cal., 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974). The court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings of fact and recommendations and finds no clear error on the face of the record. Indeed, it is clear from the Magistrate Judge’s report Dockets.Justia.com and the face of the record that the plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949-50 (2009). Therefore, the court ADOPTS the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, DISMISSES the plaintiff’s Complaint [Docket 2] for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and DENIES as moot the plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees [Docket 1]. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: -2- February 7, 2011
]]>
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.
