Lee v. Doe et al, No. 5:2006cv00454 - Document 5 (S.D.W. Va. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION: adopting the 3 Proposed Findings and Recommendations and dismissing Plaintiff's 1 Complaint. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 7/8/2009. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION LASHAWN LEE, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:06-cv-00454 DIRECTOR JOHN DOE, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Pending before the Court are Plaintiff s Complaint [Docket 1]. By Standing Order entered on July 21, 2004, and filed in this case on June 12, 2006, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (PF&R). Magistrate Judge VanDervort filed his PF&R [Docket 3] on June 8, 2009, recommending that this Court DISMISS Plaintiff s Complaint and remove this matter from the Court s docket. 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). In addition, failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and Plaintiff s right to appeal this Court s Order. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). Here, objections to Magistrate Judge VanDervort s PF&R were due by June 25, 2009, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Docket 3] in its entirety and DISMISSES Plaintiff s Complaint [Docket 1]. A separate Judgment Order will enter this day implementing the rulings contained herein. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 July 8, 2009
]]>
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.
