Ferguson v. Jordan

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by Chief Judge Gina M. Groh on 11/8/17. (Attachments: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt)(copy Plaintiff)(cnd)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA MARTINSBURG REBECCA FERGUSON, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:17-CV-120 (GROH) JAMES JORDAN, Defendant. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Currently pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble. ECF No. 12. Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Trumble for submission of an R&R. On October 16, 2017, Magistrate Judge Trumble issued his R&R, recommending that this Court dismiss without prejudice the Plaintiff’s complaint and deny as moot her application to proceed without prepaying fees and motion to appoint counsel. 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 file objections in a timely manner 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 Trumble’s R&R were due within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the same. The R&R was sent to the Plaintiff by certified mail, return receipt requested, on October 16, 2017. ECF No. 12. Service was accepted by the Plaintiff on October 17, 2017. ECF No. 13. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court will review the R&R for clear error. Upon consideration, the Court finds that it is without jurisdiction to consider the Plaintiff’s complaint because the Plaintiff invites this Court to review and reject the judgment of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine. Therefore, upon review, and finding no error, the Court ORDERS Magistrate Judge Trumble’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 12] be ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated therein. The Court hereby ORDERS that the Plaintiff’s complaint [ECF No. 1] be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees [ECF No. 2] and motion to appoint counsel [ECF No. 5] are DENIED AS MOOT. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to strike this case from the active docket and transmit a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff by certified mail, return receipt requested. DATED: November 8, 2017 2

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?