Logan v. United States of America

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by Chief Judge Gina M. Groh on 10/26/2017. Copy sent certified mail, return receipt to pro se Plaintiff.(tlg) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/26/2017: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (tlg).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MARTINSBURG
DEXTER BERNARD LOGAN,
Plaintiff,

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:17-CV-45
(GROH)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
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 this Court’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. 32] on June 28, 2017.

In the R&R, he recommends that the

Defendant=s complaint [ECF No. 1] be dismissed without 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). Failure to file
timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and of a Plaintiffs 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 pro se Plaintiff on May 31, 2017. ECF
No. 9. On June 19, 2017, 1 the Plaintiff filed a response to Magistrate Judge Trumble’s
R&R. Therein, the Plaintiff does not make any objections to the R&R, but instead, he
reiterates his grievances and potential grounds for relief. Even construing the Plaintiff’s
response most liberally, the Court cannot find any cognizable or legally adequate
objections to Magistrate Judge Trumble’s R&R. Accordingly, this Court reviewed the
R&R for clear error.
Upon careful review of the R&R, it is the opinion of this Court that Magistrate Judge
Trumble=s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 8] should be, and is hereby,
ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated therein.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff=s Complaint [ECF.No. 1] is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE. The Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel [ECF No. 11] is DENIED as
MOOT. This matter is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Court’s active docket.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to the Plaintiff by
certified mail, return receipt requested, at his last known address as reflected on the
docket sheet.
DATED: October 26, 2017

1

Although this date is beyond the deadline, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has timely filed his response
because it was placed in the mail for delivery on June 12, 2017.

2