Long v. Policarpio et al
Filing
19
ORDER ADOPTING 17 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: this Court ORDERS that the plaintiffs § 1983 claims 1 against defendants Mirandy and Rubenstein be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and the plaintiffs claims against defendants Dr. Policarpio and Ralph Price shall PROCEED. This Court furtherDIRECTS the United States Marshals Service to SERVE defendants Policarpio and Price with a copy of the summons and Complaint. Signed by Chief Judge John Preston Bailey on 1/5/15. (njz) copy mailed to pro se pla via cert. return rec't mail and mailed to USM Cburg with summons, complaint and USM 285 for process of service. (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/5/2015: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (njz).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
ELKINS
NEIL GIFFORD LONG,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-10
(BAILEY)
DR. DIIONISIO ENRIQUE POLICARPIO,
MD, RALPH E. PRICE, HSA MEDICAL
ADMINISTRATOR, PATRICK MIRANDY,
Warden of St. Mary’s Correctional Center,
JIM RUBENSTEIN, Commissioner of WV
Division of Corrections,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On this day, the above-styled matter came before this Court for consideration of the
Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge John S. Kaull [Doc. 17].
Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Kaull for
submission of a proposed report and a recommendation (“R & R”). Magistrate Judge Kaull
filed his R&R on December 10, 2014, wherein he recommends this Court dismiss the
plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against defendants Mirandy and Rubenstein and allow the claims
against defendants Policarpio and Price proceed.
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
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 Kaull’s R&R were due within
fourteen (14) days of receipt, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
The docket reflects that service was accepted on December 13, 2014 [Doc. 18]. No
objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for clear error.
Upon careful review of the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the Report and
Recommendation [Doc. 17] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the
reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge’s report.
Accordingly, this Court
ORDERS that the plaintiff’s § 1983 claims [Doc. 1] against defendants Mirandy and
Rubenstein be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and the plaintiff’s claims
against defendants Dr. Policarpio and Ralph Price shall PROCEED. This Court further
DIRECTS the United States Marshals Service to SERVE defendants Policarpio and Price
with a copy of the summons and Complaint.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to any counsel of record, the
United States Marshals Service, and to mail a copy to the pro se plaintiff.
DATED: January 5, 2015.
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?