Curry v. Federal Correction Institution Morgantown, WV et al

Filing 37

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations : It is the opinion of this Court that the Report and Recommendation 32 should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judges report. Accordingly, this Court O RDERS that the plaintiffs Federal Civil Rights Complaint 29 be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This Court further ORDERS that this matter be STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the defendants. As a final matter, upon an independent review of the record, this Court hereby DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by District Judge John Preston Bailey on 5/30/17. (Attachments: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt)(jss)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
ELKINS
TIMOTHY L. CURRY,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-29
(BAILEY)

FEDERAL CORRECTION INSTITUTION
MORGANTOWN, WV; B. PLAVI, Counselor;
C. TURNER, Case Mgr.; J. GRIBBLE,
Counselor,
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 Michael John Aloi [Doc.
32]. Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Aloi
for submission of a proposed report and recommendation (“R&R”). Magistrate Judge Aloi
filed his R&R on March 31, 2017, wherein he recommends this Court dismiss the plaintiff’s
Complaint with prejudice.
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.
1

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 Aloi’s R&R were due within
fourteen (14) days of service, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The docket reflects that service was accepted on April 5, 2017. [Doc. 33]. On April 19,
2017, the plaintiff requested additional time in which to file a response to the magistrate
judge’s R&R. [Doc. 34]. This Court granted the plaintiff thirty (30) days from receipt of the
Order granting an extension. [Doc. 35]. The docket reflects that service of that Order was
accepted on April 22, 2017.

[Doc. 36].

To date, 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. 32] 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 Federal Civil Rights Complaint [Doc. 29] be DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE. This Court further ORDERS that this matter be STRICKEN from the active
docket of this Court and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the defendants.
As a final matter, upon an independent review of the record, this Court hereby
DENIES a certificate of appealability, finding that the plaintiff has failed to make “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to any counsel of record herein
and to mail a copy to the pro se plaintiff.

2

DATED: May 30, 2017.

3