Bragg v. WV Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al, No. 2:2020cv00577 - Document 6 (S.D.W. Va. 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 5 Proposed Findings and Recommendations; denying Plaintiff's 1 Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs; dismissing Plaintiff's 2 Complaint and removing this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 4/17/2023. (cc: Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn, counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (lca) (Modified on 4/17/2023 to add link to #2 complaint) (ts).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bragg v. WV Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al Doc. 6 Case 2:20-cv-00577 Document 6 Filed 04/17/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 44 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION ROBERT FREDERICK BRAGG, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00577 WV DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On September 2, 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 4) entered on September 3, 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 March 20, 2023, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 5) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny the Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint, and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by April 6, 2023. 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 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-00577 Document 6 Filed 04/17/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 45 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 Complaint (Document 2) 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 April 17, 2023
]]>
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.
