Hagan v. Taylor et al, No. 2:2014cv16692 - Document 47 (S.D.W. Va. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 42 Proposed Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; granting the 18 Motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Ballard and Rubenstein with respect to Plaintiff's claims for monetary da mages against those defendants in their official capacities; denying said motion to dismiss in all other respects; and leaving this matter referred to Magistrate Judge Tinsley for additional proceedings concerning Plaintiff's remaining claims. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 8/14/2015. (cc: plaintiff, pro se; counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION WAYNE HAGAN, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-16692 OFFICER JERED TAYLOR, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants David Ballard and Jim Rubenstein [ECF 18]. On May 20, 2014, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). On July 21, 2015, Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed a PF&R [ECF 42] recommending that this Court grant the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Ballard and Rubenstein with respect to Plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages against those defendants in their official capacities and deny the motion in all other respects. 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 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 were due on August 7, 2015. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 42], GRANTS the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Ballard and Rubenstein with respect to Plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages against those defendants in their official capacities [ECF 18], DENIES the motion to dismiss [ECF 18] in all other respects, and leaves this matter referred to Magistrate Judge Tinsley for additional proceedings concerning Plaintiff’s remaining claims. 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: August 14, 2015
]]>
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.
