Ferguson v. Jordan
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:17-CV-120
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
DATED: November 8, 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?