Molineaux v. Vickers et al, No. 2:2014cv12270 - Document 5 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 4 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; denying the 1 Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees; dismissing 2 the Complaint; and directing this case removed from the docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 1/18/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION KEITH MARTIN MOLINEAUX, JR., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-12270 JUDGE CHARLES M. VICKERS, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Keith Martin Molineaux, Jr.’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (ECF No. 1) and Complaint (ECF No. 2). By Standing Order entered February 7, 2014, and filed in this case on March 13, 2014, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (PF&R). Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R (ECF No. 4) on December 22, 2016, recommending that this Court DENY Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and DISMISS Plaintiff’s Complaint. 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 Plaintiff’s right to appeal this Court’s Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); 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 January 9, 2017. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R (ECF No. 4), DENIES the Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (ECF No. 1), DISMISSES the Complaint (ECF No. 2), and directs the Clerk’s Office to remove this case from the docket. A separate Judgment Order will enter this day implementing the rulings contained herein. 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 January 18, 2017

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.