Fields v. Coakley et al, No. 5:2016cv00786 - Document 6 (S.D.W. Va. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 5 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge, and ORDERS that the Plaintiff's 1 Complaint be DISMISSED and that this matter be REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 9/12/2016. (cc: Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn; attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Fields v. Coakley et al Doc. 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION ANTHONY KEVIN FIELDS, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-cv-00786 JOE COAKLEY, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On January 25, 2016, the Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed his Complaint (Document 1) in this matter. By Standing Order (Document 2) entered that same date, this action was referred to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, 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. By Order (Document 3) entered on January 27, 2016, the Magistrate Judge directed the Plaintiff to either pay the filing and administrative fee or file an Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. Therein, the Plaintiff was advised that his failure to comply with the Order would result in a recommendation of dismissal of his action. Subsequently, on August 16, 2016, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 5). Therein, the Magistrate Judge noted the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s January 27, 2016 Order (Document 3), and recommended that this Court Dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by September 2, 2016. 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 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 Complaint (Document 1) be DISMISSED 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 Aboulhosn, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 September 12, 2016
]]>
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.
