Peel v. McMillion, et al, No. 5:2014cv25581 - Document 19 (S.D.W. Va. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 16 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by the Magistrate Judge, and ORDERS that the Plaintiff's 4 Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs be DENIED, the Plaintiff's 1 and 5 Complaint, as amended, be DISMISSED, and this matter REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 8/24/2015. (cc: Magistrate Judge VanDervort; attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Peel v. McMillion, et al Doc. 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION MICHAEL E. PEEL, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-cv-25581 FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE BECKLEY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Standing Order (Document 2) entered on September 9, 2014, 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 July 31, 2015, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 16) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny the Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 4), dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint as amended (Documents 1 and 5), and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by August 17, 2015, and none were filed by either party1. 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 1 The docket reflects that the Proposed Findings and Recommendation mailed to the Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable on August 12, 2015. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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 a party’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 Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 4) be DENIED, the Plaintiff’s Complaint as amended (Documents 1 and 5) be DISMISSED, and 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 August 24, 2015
]]>
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.
