Lancaster v. Todd et al

Filing 67

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 64 : The Court ADOPTS the R&R 64 and DENIES Lancasters motions to amend or correct his complaint 39 , 43 , and 60 . Signed by District Judge Irene M. Keeley on 7/10/17. (Attachments: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt)(jss)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHRISTOPHER LANCASTER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 1:16cv200
(Judge Keeley)

J. TODD, Officer; OFFICER ARTRIP;
C. O. B. KUNKLE; OFFICER FERRELL;
M. DOYLE, Lieutenant; NURSE MYERS;
NURSE FOWLER; NURSE HILEMAN;
LT. HARRISON; TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden;
ODOM, Assoc. Warden; THOMPSON,
Executive Ass’t.; NURSE DAWSON;
CAP’T. GILLY; D. JONES, Counselor;
SHERK, Officer; C. TROOPMAN, Officer;
C. BENNET, Officer; B. MICHAELS [sic],
Officer; MERKERGO [sic]; BRADLY,
Officer; ALLISON, Officer; ANDREWS,
Officer; BOYARD, Officer; and “all
unknown not listed in Complaint,”
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 64]
On

October

21,

2016,

the

pro

se

plaintiff,

Christopher

Lancaster (“Lancaster”), filed a Bivens1 action against multiple
correctional officers and employees at U.S.P. Hazelton (dkt. no.
1). The Court referred this action to United States Magistrate
Judge James E. Seibert for initial screening and a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) in accordance with LR PL P 2. On March 31,
May 1, and May 26, 2017, Lancaster filed three separate motions to
amend or correct his complaint, seeking to dismiss three defendants

1

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388, 390 (1971).

LANCASTER V. UNITED STATES

1:16CV200

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 64]
and to remove his claim for nominal damages (dkt. nos. 39, 43, and
60).
On June 14, 2017, Magistrate Judge Seibert issued an R&R, in
which he recommended that the Court deny as futile all three of
Lancaster’s motions to amend or correct his complaint, because the
proposed amendments “will not change the outcome of this case”
(dkt. no. 64 at 3).

The R&R also specifically warned Lancaster that

his failure to object to the R&R would result in the waiver of any
appellate rights he might otherwise have on this issue. Id. at 20.
The parties did not file any objections.2

Consequently, finding no

clear error, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (dkt. no. 64) and DENIES
Lancaster’s motions to amend or correct his complaint (dkt. nos.
39, 43, and 60).
It is so ORDERED.
The Court directs the Clerk of Court to transmit copies of
this Order to counsel of record and to the pro se plaintiff,
certified mail, return receipt requested.
Dated: July 10, 2017.
/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

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, 148-153 (1985); Wells
v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1997).
2