Zigmont v. Jones

Filing 27

ORDER ADOPTING SECOND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; ADOPTS the second R&R in its entirety as to 25 Report and Recommendations; GRANTS as to 19 Motion to Dismiss. ORDERS that this case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and stricken from docket. Signed by District Judge Irene M. Keeley on 11/22/2011. (Copy counsel of record via CM/ECF, pro se petitioner via certified mail)(jmm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/22/2011: # 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)

ANEGLA JONES,
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING SECOND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On

August

1,

2011,

pro

se

petitioner,

James

Zigmont

(“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, removed the
action to this Court on August 18, 2011. On August 24, 2011 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 (“first R&R”) recommending that all of Mr.
Zigmont’s motions be denied. On September 27, 2011, the Court
adopted the first R&R and denied Zigmont’s motions (dkt. no. 18).
On September 28, 2011, the defendant, Angela Jones (“Jones”),
filed a motion to dismiss Zigmont’s complaint (dkt. no. 19). On
November

2,

2011,

Judge

Kaull

issued

a

second

Report

and

ZIGMONT v. JONES

1:11CV134

ORDER ADOPTING SECOND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation (“second R&R”) recommending that the defendant’s
motion to dismiss be granted for failure to state a claim over
which this Court may assert jurisdiction (dkt. no. 25).
The Report and Recommendation also specifically warned that
Zigmont’s failure to object to the recommendations would result in
the waiver of his appellate rights on this issue. Nevertheless,
Zigmont has not filed any objections.1
Consequently, the Court ADOPTS the second R&R in its entirety,
GRANTS the defendant’s motion to dismiss, and ORDERS that this case
be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and stricken from docket.
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: November 22, 2011

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

1
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