Field v. Fitzgerald et al

Filing 34

ORDER ADOPTING 32 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. This Court ORDERS that the defendants Motions to Dismiss [Docs. 22 23 be GRANTED. As such, the plaintiffs Complaint [Doc. 1 is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This Court further ORDERS that this m atter be STRICKEN from the active docket of the Court and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the defendants. Signed by District Judge John Preston Bailey on 8/22/17. (njz) copy mailed to pro se pla via cert. return rec't mail (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/22/2017: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (njz).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
ELKINS
DALE P. FIELD, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-97
(BAILEY)

JUDY FITZGERALD, in her official
capacity as Adult Parole Authority,
GARY MOHR, in his official capacity as
Director of Rehabilitation and Corrections, and
CYNTHIA MAUSSER, in her official
capacity as Chief, Ohio Adult Parole Authority,
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 July 19, 2017, wherein he recommends this Court grant the defendants’
motions to dismiss and 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
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 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 August 2, 2017. [Doc. 33]. 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 defendants’ Motions to Dismiss [Docs. 22; 23] be GRANTED. As such,
the plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. 1] is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This Court
further ORDERS that this matter be STRICKEN from the active docket of the Court and
DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the defendants.
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.
DATED: August 22, 2017.

2