Browning v. Seifert et al

Filing 196

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; Report and Recommendation Doc. 194 hereby ORDERED ADOPTED. Court hereby DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the plaintiffs Motion to Vacate Settlement Agreement Doc. 183 and Motion for an Injunction to Enforce the S ettlement Agreement Doc. 184 . As a final matter, this action is hereby ORDERED STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court. Signed by District Judge John Preston Bailey on 1/17/2017. (copy pro se plaintiff via certified mail)(jmm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/17/2017: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (jmm).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CLARKSBURG
JASON BROWNING,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-23
(BAILEY)

NICKI SEIFERT, BRANDI MILLER,
GREG YAHNKE, EVELYN SEIFERT,
MICHAEL TAYLOR, C.J. RYDER, and
JAMES RUBENSTEIN,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of the
Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert.
Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Seibert
for submission of a proposed report and a recommendation (“R&R”). Magistrate Judge
Seibert filed his R&R on December 14, 2016 [Doc. 194]. In that filing, the magistrate judge
recommended that this Court deny the plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Settlement Agreement
[Doc. 183] and Motion for an Injunction to Enforce the Settlement Agreement [Doc. 184]
without prejudice.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), this Court is required to make a de novo
review of those portions of the magistrate judge’s findings to which objection is made.
However, 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). In addition, failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo
review and the right to appeal this Court's Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Snyder v.
Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91,
94 (4th Cir. 1984). Here, objections to Magistrate Judge Seibert’s R&R were due within
fourteen (14) days of receipt, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
The docket reflects that service was accepted on December 15, 2016 [Doc. 195]. No
objections have been filed.

Accordingly, this Court will review the report and

recommendation for clear error.
Upon careful review of the report and recommendation, it is the opinion of this Court
that the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. 194] should be, and is,
hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge’s
report. As such, this Court hereby DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the plaintiff’s Motion
to Vacate Settlement Agreement [Doc. 183] and Motion for an Injunction to Enforce the
Settlement Agreement [Doc. 184]. As a final matter, this action is hereby ORDERED
STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to any counsel of record and
to mail a copy to the pro se plaintiff.
DATED: January 17, 2017.