Roseboro v. United States of America, No. 5:2009cv00548 - Document 7 (S.D.W. Va. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: adopting the 5 Proposed Findings and Recommendations; denying Plaintiff's 1 MOTION for Relief of Medical Exemption from Education Department Due to Medical Reasons; dismissing this case from the docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 3/23/2010. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION TERRY LEE ROSEBORO, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-cv-00548 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff, Terry Lee Roseboro s Motion for Relief of Medical Exemption from Education Department Due to Medical Reasons [Docket 1]. In said motion, the Plaintiff requests a medical exemption from educational programs at Federal Correctional Institution Beckley. By Standing Order entered August 1, 2006, and filed in this case on May 15, 2009, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of proposed findings and recommendation (PF&R). Magistrate Judge VanDervort filed his PF&R [Docket 5] on February 17, 2010, finding that Plaintiff s allegations cannot be construed to implicate a constitutional right for the violation of which relief can be granted. Magistrate Judge Vandervort recommended that the undersigned dismiss Plaintiff s Complaint and remove it 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). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Petitioner s right to appeal this Court s Order. 28 U.S.C. ยง 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). In addition, this Court need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the Court to a specific error in the magistrate s proposed findings and recommendations. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Objections to the PF&R in this case were due on March 8, 2010. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Docket 5], and ORDERS that the Motion for Relief of Medical Exemption from Education Department Due to Medical Reasons [Docket 1] is DENIED and that this case is DISMISSED from the docket. A separate Judgment Order will enter this day implementing the rulings contained herein. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 March 23, 2010
]]>
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.
