Miller v. Brown et al, No. 2:2021cv00432 - Document 5 (S.D.W. Va. 2022)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting and incorporating the 4 Proposed Findings and Recommendations; denying 1 APPLICATION to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs; directing that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and the matter be removed from the Courts docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 3/30/2022. (cc: certified Mag.Judge Aboulhosn; counsel of record any unrepresented party) (tmr)

Download PDF
Miller v. Brown et al Doc. 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION ANDREW MILLER, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-cv-00432 MIKE BROWN, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On August 2, 2021, the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1) and a Complaint (Document 2). By Administrative Order (Document 3) entered on August 3, 2021, 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 11, 2022, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 4) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny the Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1), dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint (Document 2) without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by March 28, 2022. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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 Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1) be DENIED, the Plaintiff’s Complaint (Document 2) be DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and the 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 March 30, 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.