Riggleman v. Zeigler et al, No. 5:2011cv00868 - Document 22 (S.D.W. Va. 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court adopts the 20 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge, ORDERS that Plaintiff's 1 Complaint be DISMISSED, and that this matter be removed from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 9/19/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)
Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION ELISHA RIGGLEMAN, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11-cv-00868 JOEL ZIEGLER, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION On November 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed his Complaint (Document 1) in this matter claiming entitlement to relief pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). By Standing Order (Document 2) entered on November 9, 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). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to screen each case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. On August 22, 2012, the Magistrate Judge submitted Proposed Findings and Recommendation ( PF&R ) (Document 20), 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 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). Objections to the PF&R in this case were due by September 10, 2012. To date, no party has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's PF&R. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS that Plaintiff s Complaint (Document 1) be DISMISSED and this matter be removed 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: September 19, 2012