Boyd v. Consol Island Creek Coal et al, No. 5:2017cv04287 - Document 5 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: adopting the 4 Proposed Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge; denying the Plaintiff's 1 Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs; dismissing the Plaintiff's 2 Complaint; removing this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 12/5/2017. (cert. cc: Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn; counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (btm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Boyd v. Consol Island Creek Coal et al Doc. 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION JERRY WAYNE BOYD, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-cv-04287 CONSOL ISLAND CREEK COAL, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On November 7, 2017, the Plaintiff, proceeding pro-se, filed his Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1) and his Complaint (Document 2) in this matter. By Standing Order (Document 3) entered on that 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. On November 13, 2017, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 4) wherein it is recommended that the Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs be denied, the Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed, and this matter be removed from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by November 30, 2017. 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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 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 December 5, 2017
]]>
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.
