Field v. State of West Virginia et al, No. 2:2020cv00147 - Document 29 (S.D.W. Va. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 28 Proposed Findings and Recommendations; directing that the 8 Motion to Remand is denied and the 19 Motion to Dismiss is granted. The 18 Amended Complaint is dismissed and this matter is removed from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 1/8/2021. (cc: Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn; counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (lca)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Field v. State of West Virginia et al Doc. 29 Case 2:20-cv-00147 Document 29 Filed 01/08/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 192 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION DALE P. FIELD, JR., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00147 STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia on February 20, 2020. Currently before the Court are the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Document 8) filed March 18, 2020, the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Document 18) filed April 15, 2020, and the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Document 19) filed April 27, 2020. By Administrative Order (Document 2) entered on February 24, 2020, this action 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 December 16, 2020, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 28) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, grant the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by January 4, 2021. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-00147 Document 29 Filed 01/08/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 193 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 Motion to Remand (Document 8) be DENIED, the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Document 19) be GRANTED, the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Document 18) 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 January 8, 2021
]]>
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.
