Smith-Bey v. Rose et al, No. 5:2009cv00746 - Document 41 (S.D.W. Va. 2011)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: adopting the 40 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; granting Defendants' 20 Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment; DISMISSING Plaintiff's 1 Complaint and striking it from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 9/7/2011. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION JASON J. SMITH-BEY, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-cv-00746 SCOTTY ROSE, et al., Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 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 August 17, 2011, the Magistrate Judge submitted Proposed Findings and Recommendation ( PF&R ) (Docket 40) wherein it is recommended that this Court grant Defendants Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket 20) and dismiss Plaintiff s Complaint (Docket 1). 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. § 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). To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Docket 40) be ADOPTED, that Defendants Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket 20) be GRANTED, and that Plaintiff s Complaint (Docket 1) be DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court s docket. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 September 7, 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.