Lahens v. United States of America

Filing 62

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is the opinion of this Court that the Report and Recommendation [Docs. 59 and 17 should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judges report. The Defenda nts Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment [Doc. 45 is GRANTED. Accordingly, the plaintiffs FTCA Complaint [Doc. 1 is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Additionally, the plaintiffs Bivens action, Case No. 1:16-cv-95, consol idated with this FTCA action, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Finally, the pending Motion to Amend Defendants Names [Doc. 49 is DENIED AS MOOT. This Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the defendants and to STRIKE these cases from theactive docket of this Court. Signed by District Judge John Preston Bailey on 10/6/17. (Attachments: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt)(jss)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

PIERRE LAHENS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 2:16cv20
(Judge Bailey)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant,
and
TERRY O’BRIEN, J. GILLEY,
SIX UNKNOWN NAMED OFFICERS
OF USP HAZELTON SPECIAL TASK FORCE,

Civil Action No. 1:16cv95
(Judge Bailey)

Consolidated 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 James E. Seibert [Docs.
59 (2:16-cv-20) and 17 (1:16-cv-95)]. Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, this action was
referred to Magistrate Judge Seibert for submission of a proposed report and a
recommendation (“R&R”). Magistrate Judge Seibert filed his R&R on September 11, 2017,
wherein he recommends this Court grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss the FTCA and
Bivens Complaints.
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 Seibert’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 September 18, 2017 [Docs. 61 and 18].
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 [Docs. 59 and 17] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED
for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge’s report. The Defendant’s Motion
to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment [Doc. 45] is GRANTED.
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s FTCA Complaint [Doc. 1] is hereby DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE. Additionally, the plaintiff’s Bivens action, Case No. 1:16-cv-95, consolidated
with this FTCA action, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Finally, the pending Motion to
Amend Defendants’ Names [Doc. 49] is DENIED AS MOOT. This Court further DIRECTS
the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the defendants and to STRIKE these cases from the
active docket of this Court.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to any counsel of record and
2

to mail a copy to the pro se plaintiff.
DATED: October 6, 2017.

3