Ratliff v. Southern Regional Jail, No. 5:2019cv00725 - Document 9 (S.D.W. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 8 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, DENIES the 5 Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees or Costs, DISMISSES the 7 Amended Complaint and ORDERS the matter stricken. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 12/2/2019. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (msa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ratliff v. Southern Regional Jail Doc. 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY MARSHALL LOUIS RATLIFF, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-cv-00725 SOUTHERN REGIONAL JAIL and LARRY WARDEN, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending are Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees [Doc. 5] and Amended Complaint [Doc. 7]. This action was previously referred to United States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R on November 5, 2019 [Doc. 8]. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees, dismiss the Amended Complaint, and remove the matter from the Court’s docket. The Court need not 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. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (emphasis added) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Petitioner’s right to appeal the Court’s order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Dockets.Justia.com De Leon-Ramirez, 925 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 2019) (noting parties may not typically “appeal a magistrate judge’s findings that were not objected to below, as § 636(b) doesn’t require de novo review absent objection.”); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989). Further, the Court need not conduct de novo review when a party “makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the Court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Objections in this case were due on November 22, 2019. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 8], DENIES the Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees [Doc. 5], DISMISSES the Amended Complaint [Doc. 7], and ORDERS the matter stricken. The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTERED: December 2, 2019 2
]]>
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.
