Covington v. Wexford Health Sources et al

Filing 36

ORDER adopting Magistrate Joel's 34 Report and Recommendation; granting Defendant's 30 Motion for Summary Judgment and dismisses with prejudice Plaintiff's 1 Complaint. This matter is ordered stricken from the active docket. Judgment shall be entered in favor of the Defendant. Signed by Chief Judge John Preston Bailey on 10/17/11. (Attachments: # 1 Certified Mail Receipt label)(copy Plaintiff)(cnd)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA ELKINS DONALD COVINGTON, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10-CV-110 (BAILEY) DR. DAVID PROCTOR, Defendant. 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 David J. Joel. By Local Rule, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Joel for submission of a proposed report and a recommendation (“R&R”). Magistrate Judge Joel filed his R&R on September 21, 2011 [Doc. 34]. In that filing, the magistrate judge recommends that this Court grant the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 30] and dismiss with prejudice the plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. 1]. 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 1 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 Joel’s R&R were due within fourteen (14) days of receipt, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The docket reflects that service was accepted on September 22, 2011. See Doc. 35. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for clear error. Upon careful review, it is the opinion of this Court that the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. 34] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated therein. As such, this Court hereby GRANTS the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 30] and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. 1]. Therefore, this matter is hereby ORDERED STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court. The Clerk is directed to enter a separate judgment in favor of the defendant. 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: October 17, 2011. 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?