Gibson v. West Virginia State Police et al

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING #5 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S #7 MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO IDENTIFY UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS: upon careful review of the R&R, it is the opinion of this Court that Magistrate JudgeTrumble's #5 Report and Recommendation should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated therein. The Court GRANTS the Plaintiff's #7 motion. The Plaintiff shall have until January 31, 2017, to identify the unknown defendants or they will be dismissed from this action. Mineral County Sheriff's Department, Jeremy Taylor (in his official and individual capacity as a Sheriff of Mineral County), West Virginia State Police, West Virginia University Police Department, City of Keyser Police Department and James W. Courrier, Jr. (in his official and individual capacity as the Mineral County Prosecuting Attorney) are dismissed with prejudice from the complaint. Signed by Chief Judge Gina M. Groh on 1/11/2017. Copy mailed to pro se plaintiff by CMRR at his last known address as reflectedon the docket sheet. (cwm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/11/2017: #1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (cwm).

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

SINTEL GIBSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:16-CV-147
(GROH)

WEST VIRGINIA STATE POLICE,
MINERAL COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,
CITY OF KEYSER POLICE DEPARTMENT,
WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT;
and TROOPER JOHN DROPPLEMAN,
TROOPER WISNER, TROOPER TRAVELPIECE,
JEREMY TAYLOR, LARRY VIRTS, JR.,
ERIC VEACH, DEPUTY FRANKS,
DEPUTY SAVILLE, JEFFERY CONNELLY,
HON. JAMES W. COURRIER, JR., and
OTHER UNKNOWN LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS AND SUPERVISORS WHO
PARTICIPATED IN THE RAID OF PLAINTIFF’S
APARTMENT ON OCTOBER 23, 2014,
in their individual and official capacities.
Respondents.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO
IDENTIFY UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS.

On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of
the Report and Recommendation (AR&R@) of United States Magistrate Judge Robert W.
Trumble. Pursuant to the Northern District of West Virginia=s Local Rules, this action
was referred to Magistrate Judge Trumble for submission of a proposed R&R.
Magistrate Judge Trumble issued his R&R [ECF No. 5] on November 29, 2016. In the

R&R, he recommends that Defendants West Virginia State Police, Mineral County
Sheriff’s Department, City of Keyser Police Department, West Virginia University Police
Department, Jeremy Taylor and Hon. James W. Courrier, Jr. be Dismissed with prejudice
from the Complaint. 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). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of
de novo review and of a Plaintiff=s 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).
Objections to Magistrate Judge Trumble=s R&R were due within fourteen plus three
days of the Plaintiff being served with a copy of the same. 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b). Service was accepted by the Plaintiff on December 2, 2016. ECF No.
6. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s objections were due on December 20, 2016. However,
the Plaintiff’s objections were not filed until December 23, 2016. ECF No. 7. The Court
also reviewed the United States Post Office’s tracking information, which indicated that
the Plaintiff deposited his objections in the mail on December 22, 2016.
Upon careful review of the R&R, it is the opinion of this Court that Magistrate Judge
Trumble=s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 5] should be, and is, hereby
ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated therein.
2

Further, upon review and consideration of the Plaintiff’s motion seeking more time
to identify unknown defendants, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has shown good cause
to grant the motion. Specifically, the Plaintiff has provided the Court with documentation
that he has submitted Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests to various agencies
in order to determine the identities of the unknown defendants. Therefore, the Court
GRANTS the Plaintiff’s motion. The Plaintiff shall have until January 31, 2017, to identify
the unknown defendants or they will be dismissed from this action.
The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se
Plaintiff by certified mail, return receipt requested, at his last known address as reflected
on the docket sheet.

DATED: January 11, 2017

3