Igo v. Harris et al, No. 2:2022cv00305 - Document 4 (S.D.W. Va. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The 3 Proposed Findings and Recommendation is ADOPTED; directing that Plaintiff's 1 Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice and that this matter is REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 8/23/2022. (cc: certified copies to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party) (kew)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Igo v. Harris et al Doc. 4 Case 2:22-cv-00305 Document 4 Filed 08/23/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION JOSEPH WADE IGO, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-cv-00305 JUWAN HARRIS and TOPLIFE CLOTHING CO., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On July 29, 2022, the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed his Complaint (Document 1) in this matter. By Administrative Order (Document 2) entered on July 29, 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 1, 2022, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 3) wherein it is recommended that this Court dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by August 18, 2022. 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). 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:22-cv-00305 Document 4 Filed 08/23/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 17 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 Complaint (Document 1) be DISMISSED with prejudice and that 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 August 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.
