Crawford v. John Doe et al, No. 5:2006cv00093 - Document 43 (S.D.W. Va. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS and incorporated the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the 41 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and Directs that Defendants' 25 Motion to Dismiss or in t he Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED, that the 1 Plaintiff's Complaint be DISMISSED, and that this action be REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 4/21/2011. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (mls)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION CURTIS E. CRAWFORD, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:06-cv-00093 JOHN DOE, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This action began with the pro-se filing by the Plaintiff of a Motion for Emergency Injunction and Restrainment Order; Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Document No. 1) on February 7, 2006 (hereinafter Complaint.) By Standing Order (Document No. 3) entered on February 7, 2006, this action was referred to the Honorable R. Clarke VanDervort, 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 December 3, 2009, the Magistrate Judge submitted Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document No. 41) wherein it is recommended that this Court grant the Defendant s motion to dismiss, dismiss the Plaintiff s Complaint, and remove this matter from the Court s docket. 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 the Plaintiff 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 Defendants Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 25) be GRANTED, that the Plaintiff s Complaint (Document No. 1) be DISMISSED, and that this action be REMOVED from the Court s Docket. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge VanDervort, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: -2- April 21, 2011
]]>
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.
