Harrison v. Young, No. 5:2019cv00333 - Document 7 (S.D.W. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING the 6 Proposed Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, DENYING the Plaintiff's 4 Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, DENYING the Plaintiff's 5 Motion for Te mporary Restraining Order, DISMISSING the Plaintiff's 1 Complaint/Motion and REMOVING this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 7/9/2019. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party; Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn) (btm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Harrison v. Young Doc. 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION DWIGHT DAVID HARRISON, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-cv-00333 D. L. YOUNG, Warden, F.C.I. Beckley, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On April 29, 2019, the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint/Motion (Document 1) in this matter. On May 13, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Cost (Document 4) and a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Document 5). By Standing Order (Document 3) entered on April 29, 2019, 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 11, 2019, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 6) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny the Plaintiff’s Application of Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 4), deny the Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Document 5), dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint/Motion (Document 1) and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate 1 Dockets.Justia.com Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by June 28, 2019, and none were filed by either party. 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 of Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 4) be DENIED, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Document 5) be DENIED, the Plaintiff’s Complaint/Motion (Document 1) 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 9, 2019 3
]]>
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.
