Linkenauger v. Trinity Food Services et al, No. 2:2020cv00068 - Document 7 (S.D.W. Va. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The 5 Proposed Findings and Recommendation is ADOPTED and incorporated herein; directing that Plaintiff's 2 Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; Plaintiff's 1 Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs is DENIED AS MOOT; and this matter is REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 11/19/2021. (cc: certified copy to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn; counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (kew)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Linkenauger v. Trinity Food Services et al Doc. 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION JOHN STEPHEN LINKENAUGER, II, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00068 WVDCR, also known as WVRJA, and TRINITY FOOD SERVICES, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On January 28, 2020, the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed his Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1) and his Complaint (Document 2). By Administrative Order (Document 3) entered on January 29, 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 October 26, 2021, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 5) wherein it is recommended that this Court dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice, deny as moot the Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. Objections to 1 Dockets.Justia.com the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by November 12, 20211. 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 Complaint (Document 2) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, the Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1) be DENIED AS MOOT, 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: November 19, 2021 The docket reflects that the Proposed Findings and Recommendation mailed to the Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable on November 1, 2021. 2 1
]]>
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.
