Archer v. Warden Saad

Filing 8

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DKT. NO. 6 ). The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's 6 Report and Recommendation in its entirety, DENIES the 1 Petition for Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order and ORDERS that thi s case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and stricken from the Court's active docket. The Clerk is directed to enter a separate judgment order in this matter. Signed by District Judge Irene M. Keeley on 6/1/17. (To PS Plaintiff via cert. mail)(mh) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/1/2017: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (mh).

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA KEVIN EDWARD ARCHER, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:16cv172 WARDEN SAAD, Defendant. ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S OPINION/REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT No. 6] On August 12, 2016, the pro se plaintiff, Kevin Archer (“Archer”), an inmate at FCI Gilmer, mailed a complaint to the Circuit Court defendant, of Warden Gilmer Saad, County, seeking West a Virginia, preliminary against the injunction and restraining order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (dkt. no. 1). Because Plaintiff was incarcerated in FCI Gilmer, the Circuit Court of Gilmer County transferred the case to this court on August 17, 2016. The Court referred this matter to United State Magistrate Judge Michael J. Aloi for initial screening and a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in accord with LR PL P 2. On September 20, 2016, Magistrate Judge Aloi issued his R&R, in which he recommended that the Court dismiss Archer’s claim as improperly brought under § 2201 (dkt. no. 6 at 1-2). Specifically, the R&R recommended that the Court dismiss Archer’s claim without prejudice to his right to file his claim as a civil rights action. Id. at 2. ARCHER V. WARDEN SAAD 1:16CV172 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 6] The R&R also specifically warned Archer that his failure to object to the recommendation would result in the waiver of any appellate rights he might otherwise have on this issue. Id. The parties did not file any objections.1 Consequently, finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety (dkt. no. 6), DENIES the petition for writ of preliminary injunction and restraining order (dkt. no. 1), and ORDERS that this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and stricken from the Court’s active docket. It is so ORDERED. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to enter a separate judgment order and to transmit copies of this order to counsel of record and to the pro se plaintiff, certified mail, return receipt requested. Dated: June 1, 2017. /s/ Irene M. Keeley IRENE M. KEELEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 The failure to object to the Report and Recommendation not only waives the 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, 148-53 (1985); Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1997). 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?