Greene v. Randolph County et al

Filing 28

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF. NO. 24 ). The Court ORDERS that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff's pending motions (ECF. NOS. 26 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 11 , 14 are all denied as moot. Signed by District Judge Thomas S. Kleeh on 9/2/2020. (Copy PS Plaintiff by cert. mail) (dk) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/2/2020: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (dk).

Case 1:20-cv-00064-TSK Document 28 Filed 09/02/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 511

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CLARKSBURG
MICHAEL J. GREENE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civ. Action No. 1:20-CV-64
(Kleeh)

RANDOLPH COUNTY et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 24]
On April 9, 2020, the pro se Plaintiff, Michael J. Greene
(“Plaintiff”), filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against numerous defendants in this case. The following is a
summary of his allegations:
Greene raises First, Sixth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth
Amendment
claims,
alleging
retaliation;
racial
discrimination;
deliberate indifference to serious medical
and mental health needs; wrongful transfers;
ignoring of grievances or not granting
grievances in his favor; unfair disciplinary
hearings; and a multitude of conditions of
confinement claims against the 42 named
defendants.
Plaintiff
admits
to
having
hallucinations and hearing voices, which he
contends began during a 2016 hospitalization
at Davis Medical Center where he was
diagnosed with polycystic kidneys and a
small pericardial effusion, when medical
staff put a ‘liquid item” in his IV, which
he now contends permits others to hear his
thoughts on the radio, control his thoughts,
and intentionally cause him pain. He also
alludes to an incident of excessive force

Case 1:20-cv-00064-TSK Document 28 Filed 09/02/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 512

GREENE V. RANDOLPH COUNTY ET AL.

1:20-CV-64

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 24]
which occurred in October of 2016, and seeks
to raise a Monell claim.
ECF No. 24 at 5.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the local rules, the Court
referred the action to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J.
Aloi for initial review. On July 23, 2020, the Magistrate Judge
entered a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that
the Court dismiss the Complaint without prejudice.
The R&R also informed the parties that they had fourteen
(14) days from the date of service of the R&R to file “specific
written objections, identifying the portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis of such
objection.” It further warned them that the “[f]ailure to file
written objections . . . shall constitute a waiver of de novo
review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by
the

Circuit

Court

of

Appeals.”

The

docket

reflects

that

Plaintiff accepted service of the R&R on July 27, 2020. See ECF
No. 25. To date, no objections have been filed.
When reviewing a magistrate judge’s R&R, the Court must
review de novo only the portions to which an objection has been
timely made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Otherwise, “the Court may
adopt,

without

recommendations”

explanation,
to

any

which

of

there

the
are

magistrate
no

judge’s

objections.

Dellarcirprete v. Gutierrez, 479 F. Supp. 2d 600, 603–04 (N.D.W.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00064-TSK Document 28 Filed 09/02/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 513

GREENE V. RANDOLPH COUNTY ET AL.

1:20-CV-64

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 24]
Va. 2007) (citing Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir.
1983)). Courts will uphold portions of a recommendation to which
no objection has been made unless they are clearly erroneous.
See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,
315 (4th Cir. 2005).
Because

no

party

has

objected,

the

Court

is

under

no

obligation to conduct a de novo review. Accordingly, the Court
reviewed

the

R&R

for

clear

error.

Upon

careful

review,

and

finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS the R&R [ECF No. 24].
The

Court

ORDERS

that

the

Complaint

be

DISMISSED

WITHOUT

PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s pending motions to proceed as a pauper
[ECF No. 2]; to show cause for a preliminary injunction [ECF No.
4]; for appointment of counsel [ECF No. 5]; to appoint the WVU
School of Law Clinical Law Program as counsel [ECF No. 11]; for
a jury trial, to engage in discovery, and for the Court to serve
the defendants [ECF No. 14]; and for a copy of a document [ECF
No. 26] are all DENIED AS MOOT. The Court further ORDERS that
this

matter

be

STRICKEN

from

the

Court’s

active

docket

and

DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a separate judgment order.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to
counsel

of

record

via

electronic

means

and

to

the

Plaintiff via certified mail, return receipt requested.
3

pro

se

Case 1:20-cv-00064-TSK Document 28 Filed 09/02/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 514

GREENE V. RANDOLPH COUNTY ET AL.

1:20-CV-64

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 24]
DATED: September 2, 2020
/s/ Thomas S. Kleeh
THOMAS S. KLEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4