Williams v. Dixion et al, No. 2:2020cv00688 - Document 59 (S.D.W. Va. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 48 Proposed Findings and Recommendations and denies the 14 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 8/9/2021. (cc: Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn; counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (lca)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Williams v. Dixion et al Doc. 59 Case 2:20-cv-00688 Document 59 Filed 08/09/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 379 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION STEVEN M. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00688 CURTIS DIXION, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this matter with the filing of a complaint (Document 1) on October 19, 2020. By Administrative Order (Document 5) entered on October 20, 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. Subsequently, on March 9, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction (Document 14) along with a memorandum in support of motion for preliminary injunction (Document 15). On July 16, 2021, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 48) relating to the Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. Therein, it is recommended that this Court deny the Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-00688 Document 59 Filed 08/09/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 380 Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by August 2, 2021. 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 for preliminary injunction (Document 14) be DENIED. 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 August 9, 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.
