Bailey v. Beckley VA Medical Center, No. 5:2017cv04614 - Document 12 (S.D.W. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Denying as moot Plaintiff's 5 Motion for Reconsideration of his application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs; adopting the 9 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by the Magistrate Judge; granti ng the 11 Motion to Dismiss filed by Charley Edward Bailey; dismissing Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice; and removing this action from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 3/15/2018. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party; Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn) (slr) Modified cc: line on 3/15/2018 (slr).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bailey v. Beckley VA Medical Center Doc. 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION CHARLES EDWARD BAILEY, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-cv-04614 BECKLEY VA MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On December 26, 2017, the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1) and a Complaint (Document 2) in this matter. By Standing Order (Document 3) entered on that date, the 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 4) dated December 27, 2017, the Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1) was denied. On January 16, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a letter-form motion, cross-filed in both Civil Action Nos. 5:17-cv-04614 and 5:17cv-04615, for reconsideration of his application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs (Document 5 in 5:17-cv-04614). Based on the Court’s rulings set forth hereinafter, it is ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of his application to proceed without 1 Dockets.Justia.com prepayment of fees and cost (Document 5) is DENIED AS MOOT as it relates to Civil Action No. 5:17-cv-04614. On February 16, 2018, in Civil Action No 5:17-cv-04615, the Plaintiff filed a Response (Document 9 therein), advising that he wishes to withdraw Civil Action No. 5:17-cv-04614 and pursue only Civil Action No. 5:17-cv-04615. By Order (Document 10) dated March 15, 2018, the Court directed the Clerk to file that Response in Civil Action No. 5:17-cv-04614 as a letterform motion to dismiss action. The same was filed in Civil Action No. 5:17-cv-04614 on that date (Document 11). On February 20, 2018, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 9) wherein it is recommended that the Plaintiff’s letter-form motion to dismiss action be granted, that the Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without prejudice, and that this action be removed from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by March 9, 2018, and none were filed. 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 action 2 (Document 11) be GRANTED, that the Plaintiff’s Complaint (Document 2) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and that this action 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: 3 March 15, 2018
]]>
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.
