Maliki v. Vienna WV Police Department et al, No. 2:2016cv06289 - Document 16 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 15 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; granting defendants' 6 Motion to Dismiss and granting defendants' 9 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute; dismissing this case; and directing this action removed from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 6/14/2017. (cc: plaintiff; 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 MAJED ABDULLAH MALIKI, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-06289 VIENNA WV POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court are Defendants’ unopposed Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 6), and unopposed Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute, (ECF No. 9). Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, this action was previously referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition (“PF&R”). (ECF No. 3.) Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on May 26, 2017, recommending that the Court grant the motions and dismiss this matter pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(b) and 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 15.) 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 a party’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). Objections to the PF&R in this case were due on June 12, 2017. To date, no objections have been filed. The Court therefore ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 15), and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 6), and Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute, (ECF No. 9). Further, the Court DISMISSES this case, and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this action from the Court’s docket. 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: June 14, 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.
