Richmond v. Raleigh County West Virginia, No. 5:2016cv10846 - Document 6 (S.D.W. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 4 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge, and ORDERS that the 1 Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees or Costs filed by Eddie Richmond be DENIED, the Plaintiff's 2 Civil Complaint be DISMISSED, and this matter REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 10/16/2019. (cc: Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn; attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Richmond v. Raleigh County West Virginia Doc. 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION EDDIE RICMOND, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-cv-10846 RALEIGH COUNTY WEST VIRGINIA, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On November 14, 2016, the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1) and a Civil Complaint (Document 2). By Standing Order (Document 3) entered on that date, the matter 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. On September 19, 2019, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 4) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny the Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, dismiss the Plaintiff’s Civil Complaint, and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by October 7, 20191. The docket reflects that the Proposed Findings and Recommendation mailed to the Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable and re-mailed to a different address on October 4, 2019. As of October 16, 2019, no objections had been filed. 1 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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 Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1) be DENIED, the Plaintiff’s Civil Complaint (Document 2) 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 Aboulhosn, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 October 16, 2019
]]>
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.
