Bonds v. Fox et al

Filing 40

ORDER denying as moot 36 Report and Recommendations; adopting Report and Recommendations 37 ; and granting 33 Motion to Dismiss, and dismisses the case with prejudice and orders it stricken from the Court's Docket. Signed by District Judge Irene M Keeley on 5/12/09. (copy pro se plaintiff via certified mail)(jcs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA JOHN BONDS, Plaintiff, v. DR. LARRY WILLIAMSON, Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On February 13, 2008, pro se plaintiff John Bonds ("Bonds") filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. The Court referred this Civil Action No. 1:08CV78 (Judge Keeley)

matter to United States Magistrate Judge John S. Kaull for initial screening and a report and recommendation ("R&R") in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and Local Rule of Prisoner Litigation 83.02. On May 23, 2008, Magistrate Judge Kaull issued an R&R

recommending that certain defendants be dismissed, but that Bonds' claims against defendant Dr. Larry Williamson ("Williamson")

proceed.

Dr. Williamson was served with a copy of the summons and

Complaint on June 30, 2008. On September 19, 2008, after Williamson filed a motion to dismiss, Magistrate Judge Kaull issued a second R&R, recommending that Williamson's motion be granted-in-part and denied-in-part. Bonds did not object to that recommendation, which the Court adopted on October 21, 2008. Williamson then filed an Answer on

November 6, 2008, and, on January 21, 2009, he filed a "Motion to Compel and Impose Sanction of Dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint."

BONDS V. FOX, ET AL. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

1:08CV78

Magistrate Judge Kaull issued an Order to Show Cause to Bonds, who failed to respond. Accordingly, on April 10, 2009, he issued

a third R&R, which was then followed on April 16, 2009, with an Amended R&R, both recommending that the Court grant Williamson's motion and dismiss the case with prejudice. The R&R also specifically warned the parties that failure to object to the recommendation would result in the waiver of

appellate rights on this issue. been filed.1

Nevertheless, no objections have

Consequently, the Court ADOPTS the Amended Report and

Recommendation (dkt. no. 37) in its entirety, DENIES AS MOOT the R&R issued on April 10, 2009 (dkt. no. 36), GRANTS Williamson's motion to Dismiss the Complaint (dkt. no. 33), and DISMISSES the case WITH PREJUDICE and ORDERS it stricken from the Court's docket. The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to counsel of record and the pro se plaintiff, return receipt requested. Dated: May 12, 2008. /s/ Irene M. Keeley IRENE M. KEELEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1

Bonds' failure to object to the Report and Recommendation not only waives his appellate rights in this matter, but also relieves the Court of any obligation to conduct a de novo review of the issues presented. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-153 (1985); Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1997). 2