Riggleman v. Beckley Consolidated Legal Center, No. 5:2012cv05276 - Document 6 (S.D.W. Va. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS and incorporates the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the 5 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS that the Plaintiff's 4 Motion to Dismiss the Co mplaint be GRANTED, that the Plaintiff's 1 Complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and that this matter be REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 10/25/2012. (cc: USMJ VanDervort; attys; any unrepresented party) (msa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION ELISHA RIGGLEMAN, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-cv-05276 BECKLEY CONSOLIDATED LEGAL CENTER and JO EVA BEAN, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff s complaint (Document 1) filed on September 10, 2012, as well as his pro-se, letter-form motion to dismiss the complaint (Document 4) filed on September 20, 2012. By Standing Order (Document 2) entered on September 10, 2012, 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. On September 27, 2012, the Magistrate Judge submitted Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 5) wherein it is recommended that this Court grant the Plaintiff s motion to dismiss the complaint, dismiss the complaint without prejudice, and remove this action from the Court s docket. Neither party has timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation. The Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the 1 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). 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 the Plaintiff s motion to dismiss the complaint (Document 4) be GRANTED, that the Plaintiff s complaint (Document 1) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and that this matter be REMOVED from the Court s docket. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge VanDervort, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 October 25, 2012
]]>
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.
