Jones v. Freeman

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 12 ]. The Court ADOPTS the Report & Recommendation in its entirety (Dkt. No. 12 ), DENIES as MOOT Jones's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 2 ), and ORDERS that this cas e be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and stricken from theCourt's active docket. Signed by Senior Judge Irene M. Keeley on 7/30/2019. (Copy to PS Plaintiff via CM, RRR.)(wrr) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/30/2019: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (jmm).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
DANIEL LEE JONES, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17CV168
(Judge Keeley)

JEFF FREEMAN,
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 12]
On October 6, 2017, the pro se plaintiff, Daniel Lee Jones,
Sr. (“Jones”), filed a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Dkt. No.
1). That same day, Jones moved for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (Dkt. No. 2), and the Court issued Jones a Notice of
General Guidelines for Appearing Pro Se in Federal Court (Dkt. No.
3). The Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge
James

P.

Mazzone

for

initial

screening

and

a

Report

and

Recommendation (“R&R”) in accordance with LR PL P 2 and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e).
Magistrate Judge Mazzone’s R&R recommended that the Court
dismiss Jones’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted under § 1983 (Dkt. No. 12). The R&R also
specifically warned Jones 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. at 6. Jones did not file
any objections to the R&R.1
The failure to object to the R&R not only waives the appellate
rights in this matter, but also relieves the Court of any
1

JONES V. FREEMAN

1:17CV168

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 12]
Consequently, finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS the R&R
in its entirety (Dkt. No. 12), DENIES as MOOT Jones’s motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 2), and ORDERS that
this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and stricken from the
Court’s active docket.
It is so ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a separate judgment order
and to transmit copies of both orders to the pro se plaintiff,
certified

mail,

return

receipt

requested,

to

his

last

known

address.
Dated: July 30, 2019
/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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