Wells v. City of Charleston, No. 2:2022cv00040 - Document 8 (S.D.W. Va. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying the 1 Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees or Costs, adopting the 7 Proposed Findings and Recommendations and removing this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 3/30/2022. (cc: Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn; counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (lca)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Wells v. City of Charleston Doc. 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION KANDANCE WELLS, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-cv-00040 CITY OF CHARLESTON, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On January 24, 2022, the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1) and a Complaint (Document 2). By Standing Order (Document 3) entered on January 25, 2022, the matter was referred to the Honorable Dwane L. Tinsley, United States Magistrate Judge, for the submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Subsequently, by Clerk’s Order (Document 5) entered on January 26, 2022, the referral was transferred from Magistrate Judge Tinsley to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate Judge. On March 7, 2022, Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 7) 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), and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by March 24, 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, 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 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.
