Legg et al v. Charleston Police Department et al, No. 2:2020cv00023 - Document 14 (S.D.W. Va. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 1 APPLICATION to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs; adopting 12 Proposed Findings and Recommendations; dismissing plaintiff's 10 Amended Complaint and directing that this matter be removed from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 7/15/2020. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party; Mag. Judge) (tmr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Legg et al v. Charleston Police Department et al Doc. 14 Case 2:20-cv-00023 Document 14 Filed 07/15/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 66 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION ROBERT LEE LEGG, JR., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00023 CHARLESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT , et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On January 10, 2020, the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1) and a Complaint (Document 2). An Amended Complaint (Document 10) was filed on February 13, 2020. By Administrative Order (Document 3) entered on January 13, 2020, the matter was referred to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, 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. On June 18, 2020, Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 12) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny the Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1), dismiss the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Document 10), and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-00023 Document 14 Filed 07/15/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 67 Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by July 6, 2020. Neither party has timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation. 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). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS that the Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1) be DENIED, the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Document 10) be DISMISSED, and this matter be REMOVED from the Court’s docket. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 July 15, 2020
]]>
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.
