Randolph v. Thornhill, No. 2:2020cv00429 - Document 14 (S.D.W. Va. 2021)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 12 Proposed Findings and Recommendation; directing the Plaintiff's 1 , 5 , 9 Complaints be dismissed; the Plaintiff's 4 , 8 Applications are denied and this matter be removed from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 11/19/2021. (cc: Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn, counsel of record, any unrepresented party) (lca)

Download PDF
Randolph v. Thornhill Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION KEREEM RANDOLPH, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00429 JESSICA THORNHILL, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On June 22, 2020, the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a letter-form Complaint (Document 1) in this matter. An Amended Complaint (Document 5) was filed on July 24, 2020, and a Second Amended Complaint (Document 9) was filed on September 2, 2020. The Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 4) on July 24, 2020, and a second Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 8) on September 2, 2020. By Administrative Order (Document 2) entered on June 23, 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 October 26, 2021, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 12) wherein it is recommended that this Court dismiss the Plaintiff’s complaints, deny as moot the Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, and remove 1 Dockets.Justia.com this matter from the Court’s docket. Objections to 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 the Plaintiff’s Complaints (Documents 1, 5 & 9) be DISMISSED, the Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Documents 4 & 8) be DENIED, 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, and re-mailed to a different address on that date. As of November 18, 2021, no objections had been filed. 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.