Slonaker v. Jividin et al, No. 2:2021cv00036 - Document 16 (S.D.W. Va. 2022)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 14 Proposed Findings and Recommendations, denying the 1 , 6 , and 8 Applications to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, dismissing the 3 Complaint and remove this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 2/17/2022. (cc: Magistrate Aboulhosn, counsel of record, any unrepresented party) (lca)

Download PDF
Slonaker v. Jividin et al Doc. 16 Case 2:21-cv-00036 Document 16 Filed 02/18/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 121 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION DANIEL F. SLONAKER, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-cv-00036 BETSY JIVIDIN, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On January 14, 2021, the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed his Complaint (Document 3) in this matter. The Plaintiff has also filed three applications to proceed with prepayment of fees and costs (Documents 1, 6 & 8). By Administrative Order (Document 4) entered on January 15, 2021, 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 19, 2022, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 14) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny the Plaintiff’s applications to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs (Documents 1 & 6), dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint (Document 3), and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by February 7, 2022. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:21-cv-00036 Document 16 Filed 02/18/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 122 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. The Court further ORDERS that the Plaintiff’s applications to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs (Documents 1, 6 & 8) be DENIED, the Plaintiff’s Complaint (Document 3) 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 February 17, 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.