Folse v. McCuskey et al, No. 2:2022cv00252 - Document 14 (S.D.W. Va. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, granting Defendant John McCuskey, Jr.'s 5 Motion to Dismiss, granting Defendant Lee Cassis's 6 Motion to Dismiss, dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff's 1 Complaint, and removing this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 9/12/2022. (cc: Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn; counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (btm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Folse v. McCuskey et al Doc. 14 Case 2:22-cv-00252 Document 14 Filed 09/12/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 142 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION JAY FOLSE, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-cv-00252 JOHN MCCUSKEY, JR. and LEE CASSIS, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On June 13, 2022, the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed his Complaint (Document 1) in this matter. On July 5, 2022, Defendant John McCuskey, Jr., filed a Motion to Dismiss (Document 5) and Defendant Lee Cassis filed a Motion to Dismiss (Document 6). By Administrate Order (Document 3) entered on June 14, 2022, 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 August 15, 2022, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 13) wherein it is recommended that this Court grant Defendant John McCuskey, Jr.’s Motion to Dismiss (Document 5) and Defendant Lee Cassis’s Motion to Dismiss (Document 6), dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint (Document 1) with prejudice, and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by September 1, 2022. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:22-cv-00252 Document 14 Filed 09/12/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 143 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 Defendant John McCuskey, Jr.’s Motion to Dismiss (Document 5) be GRANTED, Defendant Lee Cassis’s Motion to Dismiss (Document 6) be GRANTED, the Plaintiff’s Complaint (Document 1) be DISMISSED with prejudice, 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 September 12, 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.
