Hill v. Rose et al, No. 5:2018cv01535 - Document 9 (S.D.W. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING and incorporating the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the 8 Proposed Findings and Recommendations; directing that Plaintiff's 4 APPLICATION to Proceed Without Prepa yment of Fees or Costs be DENIED, Plaintiff's 1 and 7 Complaint be DISMISSED, and this matter be REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 7/3/2019. (cc: USMJ Aboulhosn; counsel of record, any unrepresented party) (msa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hill v. Rose et al Doc. 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION JERMAIN HILL, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-cv-01535 OFFICER ROSE, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On December 21, 2018, the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a letter-form Complaint (Document 1). On January 2, 2019, he filed an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 4) and a subsequent Complaint (Document 7). By Standing Order (Document 2) entered on December 21, 2018, 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 June 10, 2019, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 8) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny the Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 4), dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint (Documents 1 & 7), and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by June 24, 2019, and none were filed by either party. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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 4) be DENIED, the Plaintiff’s Complaint (Documents 1 & 7) 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 July 3, 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.
