Zigmont v. Jones

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 7 Motion to Remand to State Court filed by James S. Zigmont. 12 Motion for Sanctions, Motion for Hearing filed by James S. Zigmont, 15 Memorandum & Opinion, Report and Recommendations. Court ADOPTS t he Report and Recommendation in its entirety and DENIES the plaintiffs motions to remand, for sanctions, and for an emergency hearing. Signed by District Judge Irene M. Keeley on 9/27/2011. (Copy counsel of record via CM/ECF, pro se plaintiff via certified mail)(jmm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/27/2011: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (jmm).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
JAMES S. ZIGMONT,
Plaintiff,
v.

//

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11CV134
(Judge Keeley)

ANGELA JONES,
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On August 1, 2011, pro se plaintiff and petitioner, James
Zigmont, filed his “Petition To Release and Expunge the Record of
Erroneous Tax Lien and Holds on Property” [complaint] in the
Circuit Court of Harrison County, West Virginia. The United States,
on behalf of its agency, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
removed the action to this Court on August 18, 2011. On August 24,
2011 Mr. Zigmont moved to remand his case, for sanctions, and for
an emergency hearing. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A)-(B) and
L.R. Civ. P. 7.02(c), the Court referred this matter to United
States Magistrate Judge John S. Kaull for initial screening and a
report and recommendation. On September 8, 2011, Judge Kaull issued
a Report and Recommendation recommending that Mr. Zigmont’s motions
to remand, for sanctions, and for an emergency hearing be denied.
The Report and Recommendation also specifically warned that
Mr. Zigmont’s failure to object to the recommendation would result

ZIGMONT v. JONES

1:11CV134

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
in the waiver of his appellate rights on this issue. Nevertheless,
Mr. Zigmont has not filed any objections.1
Consequently, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation
in its entirety and DENIES the plaintiff’s motions to remand, for
sanctions, and for an emergency hearing.
It is so ORDERED.
The Court directs the Clerk of the Court to transmit copies of
this order to counsel of record and to the pro se petitioner,
certified mail, return receipt requested.
Dated: September 27, 2011.

/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

___

1
Mr. Zigmont’s 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 issue 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