Turner v. Zigler et al, No. 5:2011cv00620 - Document 5 (S.D.W. Va. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER: adopting the 4 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; ordering that Plaintiff's 1 Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees or Costs be DENIED; ordering that Plaintiff's 2 Complaint be DISMISSED and stricken from the docket of this Court. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 10/13/2011. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Turner v. Zigler et al Doc. 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION CHARLES D. TURNER, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11-cv-00620 JOEL ZIEGLER, Respondent. ORDER The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1) and Plaintiff’s Complaint (Document 2). By Order (Document 3) entered on September 14, 2011, 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 September 20, 2011, the Magistrate Judge submitted Proposed Findings and Recommendation (“PF & R”) (Document 4) wherein he recommended that this Court deny Plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees, 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 objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Petitioner's right to appeal this Dockets.Justia.com 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). Objections to the PF & R were due by October 7, 2011. No objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation be ADOPTED and further ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1) be DENIED and Plaintiff's Complaint (Document 2) be DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the docket of this Court. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to any unrepresented party. ENTER: October 13, 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.
