Jackson v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al, No. 5:2009cv00560 - Document 15 (S.D.W. Va. 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: adopting the 7 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge; it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's 1 Complaint be DISMISSED and that this matter be removed from the docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 8/2/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION RODNEY L. JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-cv-00560 FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMENDATION On April 28, 2009, Plaintiff, acting pro se and formerly incarcerated at FCI Beckley in Beckley, West Virginia, filed his Complaint (Document 1) in this matter in the Middle District of Georgia claiming entitlement to relief pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This case was subsequently transferred to this Court. (Documents 2 & 3). By Standing Order (Document 4) entered on May 19, 2009, 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(b)(1)(B). On April 19, 2012, the Magistrate Judge submitted Proposed Findings and Recommendation ( PF&R ) (Document 7), wherein it is recommended 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 addre essed. Thom v. Arn, 4 U.S. 140 150 (1985 Failure t file mas 474 0, 5). to timely ob bjections con nstitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Pe w w etitioner's rig to appea this ght al Court's Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636( O (b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th a r, 6 Cir.1989); United St tates v. Schr ronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir.19 F 984). In add dition, this C Court need not conduct a de novo review when a party make general an conclusor objections that d p es nd ry do not direct the Court to a specific error in th magistrat he te's propose findings and ed recomme endations. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44 , 47 (4th C Cir.1982). O Objections to the PF&R in this case were originall due by May 7, 2012. On May 9, 2012, the C n w ly M , Court adopte the ed Proposed Findings and Recomm d a mendation and dismisse Plaintiff Complain Howeve on a ed s nt. er, June 6, 2012, the Court vacat the Mem C ted morandum O Opinion and Order (D d Document 9) and ) Judgmen Order (Document 10) and granted Plaintiff lea to file an objections to the Prop nt ave ny posed Findings and Recom mmendation no later than June 22, 2 n n 2012. (Docu ument 13). P Plaintiff fail to led file any objections to the Magistr Judge's PF&R. o o rate P Accordingly, the Cour ADOPT and in A rt TS ncorporates herein the findings and e recomme endation of the Magi f istrate Judg as conta ge ained in th Proposed Findings and he Recomm mendation, an ORDERS that Plaintiff s Compla be DISM nd S aint MISSED an that this m nd matter be remov from the docket. ved e The Court DI T IRECTS the Clerk to se a copy o this Orde to counsel of record a to e end of er l and any unrep presented pa arty. ENT TER: 2 A August 2, 20 012

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.