Jackson v. Morgan, No. 5:2009cv00954 - Document 17 (S.D.W. Va. 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the 15 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS that Plaintiff's 2 Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees be DENIED and Plaintiff's 1 Complaint be DISMISSED. The Court further ORDERS that this matter be removed from the docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 5/14/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (msa)
Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION VAUGHN D. JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-cv-00954 E. LAVOYD MORGAN, JR., Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On August 12, 2009, Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed his Complaint (Document 1) in this matter in the Northern District of West Virginia claiming entitlement to relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. The case was subsequently transferred to this Court. (Documents 9 & 10) By Standing Order (Document 11) entered on August 21, 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 23, 2012, the Magistrate Judge submitted Proposed Findings and Recommendation ( PF&R ) (Document 15), wherein it is recommended that this Court deny Plaintiff s Application To Proceed Without Prepayment Of Fees (Document 2), 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). Failure to file 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 U 6(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenou 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th r ur, 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, 68 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Ci 1982). O O 87 ir. Objections t the to PF&R in this case were due by May 10, 2012. To da no party has filed objections t the n w y 2 ate, y to Magistra Judge's PF ate F&R. 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 (D Document 15), and ORDERS th Plaintiff Applicat 1 O hat f s tion To Pro oceed Without Prepayment Of Fees (D t Document 2) be DENIE and Plain ) ED ntiff s Comp plaint (Docu ument 1) be DIS SMISSED. The Court further ORD f DERS that th matter be removed fr his e rom the dock ket. 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 May 14, 2012 y