Hamilton v. State of West Virginia et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: upon careful review, and finding no error, the Court ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Seibert's 63 Report and Recommendation should be, and is, hereby ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated therein. The Defendants' 29 37 41 Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED and the Plaintiff's 1 complaint is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the Defendants, close this matter and strike i t from this Court's active docket. Signed by Chief Judge Gina M. Groh on 3/7/2017. Copy mailed to pro se plaintiff by CMRR at his last known address as reflected on the docket. (cwm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/7/2017: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (cwm).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:16-CV-116
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA;
WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS;
SALEM CORRECTIONAL CENTER;
ALL OFFICERS NAMED AND UNNAMED;
JASON KUHN, Captain of Security,
Salem Correctional Center; WARDEN JOHNS,
Warden, Salem Correctional Center;
COI SNYDER, Correctional Officer I,
Salem Correctional Center; MR. WESTFALL,
Assistant Warden, Salem Correctional Center;
MR. PETERS A.W.S, Assistant Warden Security,
Salem Correctional Center; JIM RUBENSTEIN,
Commissioner of Corrections,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court for consideration of a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) issued by United States Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert. Pursuant to this
Court’s Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Seibert for submission
of an R&R.
On February 2, 2017, Magistrate Judge Seibert issued his R&R,
recommending that this Court grant Defendant Snyder’s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 29],
grant Defendant Kuhn’s joinder and motion to dismiss [ECF No. 37], grant the remaining
Defendants’ motion to dismiss [ECF No. 41] and deny and dismiss with prejudice the
Plaintiff’s complaint [ECF No. 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, this Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the
factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge to which no objections are made.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to timely file objections constitutes a
waiver of de novo review and a plaintiff’s right to appeal this Court’s Order. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States
v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). In this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, objections to
Magistrate Judge Seibert’s R&R were due within fourteen days after being served with a
copy of the same. The Plaintiff was served with the R&R on February 6, 2017. To date,
neither party has filed objections. Accordingly, the Court will review the R&R for clear
Upon careful review, and finding no error, the Court ORDERS that Magistrate
Judge Seibert’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 63] should be, and is, hereby
ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated therein.
Accordingly, the Defendants’
Motions to Dismiss [ECF Nos. 29, 37, 41] are GRANTED and the Plaintiff’s complaint
[ECF No. 1] is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the Defendants, close
this matter and strike it from this Court’s active docket, and transmit copies of this Order
to all counsel of record and the pro se Plaintiff.
DATED: March 7, 2017
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?