Williams v. Dixion et al, No. 2:2020cv00688 - Document 91 (S.D.W. Va. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 90 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; granting the Defendant's 82 MOTION for Summary Judgment; denying Plaintiff's 75 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment; and directing that this matter be removed from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 2/23/2022. (cc: certified copy to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party) (mk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Williams v. Dixion et al Doc. 91 Case 2:20-cv-00688 Document 91 Filed 02/23/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 740 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 On October 19, 2020, the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed his Complaint (Document 2) in this matter. Currently pending are the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Document 75) and the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Document 82). 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. On January 28, 2022, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 90) wherein it is recommended that this Court grant the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Document 82), deny the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Document 75), and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by February 14, 2022. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-00688 Document 91 Filed 02/23/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 741 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 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Document 82) be GRANTED, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Document 75) 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: 2 February 23, 2022
]]>
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.
