Lynch v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. Staff, No. 2:2023cv00389 - Document 8 (S.D.W. Va. 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 7 Proposed Findings and Recommendations; directing that the 6 Motion to Dismiss filed by John J. Lynch is granted and this case is dismissed without prejudice and removed from the docket of this court. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 8/3/2023. (cc: certified copy to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn, counsel of record, any unrepresented party) (lca)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lynch v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. Staff Doc. 8 Case 2:23-cv-00389 Document 8 Filed 08/03/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION JOHN J. LYNCH, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-cv-00389 WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., STAFF, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On May 16, 2023, the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed his letter-form Complaint (Document 1) in this matter. Subsequently, on July 12, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a letter-form motion to voluntarily dismiss (Document 6). By Administrative Order (Document 2) entered on May 17, 2023, 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 July 13, 2023, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 7) wherein it is recommended that this Court grant the Plaintiff’s letter-form motion to dismiss (Document 6), dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint (Document 1) without prejudice, and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by July 31, 2023. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:23-cv-00389 Document 8 Filed 08/03/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 29 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 letter-form motion to dismiss (Document 6) is GRANTED, the Plaintiff’s Complaint (Document 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice, and this matter is 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 3, 2023
]]>
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.
