Lucas v. Southern Regional Jail et al, No. 5:2015cv11767 - Document 15 (S.D.W. Va. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: the Court Adopts and incorporates the 9 Findings and Recommendations and Orders that the Plaintiff's letter-form 8 Motion to Dismiss Complaint 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 9/16/2015. (cc: USMJ VanDervort, counsel and any unrepresented party) (cds)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lucas v. Southern Regional Jail et al Doc. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION ANGEL MARIE LUCAS, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-cv-11767 SOUTHERN REGIONAL JAIL, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On August 4, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Document 1) in this matter. Subsequently, on August 7, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a letter-form Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Document 8). By Order (Document 6) entered on August 5, 2015, 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 August 10, 2015, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 9) wherein it is recommended that the Plaintiff’s letter-form Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Document 8) be granted, that the Plaintiff’s Complaint (Document 1) be dismissed without prejudice, and that this matter be removed from the Court’s docket. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by August 27, 20151, and none were timely filed by either party. 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 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 letter-form Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Document 8) 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: 1 September 16, 2015 The docket reflects that the Proposed Findings and Recommendation mailed to the Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable on August 20, 2015, and re-mailed to a different address on that date. The docket further reflects that the re-mailed Proposed Findings and Recommendation was also returned as undeliverable on August 28, 2015, and re-mailed to a different address on that date. As of September 15, 2015, no objections had been filed. 2
]]>
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.
