Steerman v. Moats et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 5 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort, DENIES Plaintiff's 1 Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs, DISMISSES Plaintiff's 2 Complaint, and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the Court's docket. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 12/10/2015. (cc: Plaintiff, Pro Se and counsel of record) (arb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
JASON KENT STEERMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No: 1:13-02769

ALAN D. MOATS, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court are plaintiff’s application to
proceed without prepayment of fees or costs, (Doc. No. 1), and
complaint.

(Doc. No. 2).

By Standing Order, this matter was

referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort
for submission of findings and recommendations regarding
disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
4).

(Doc. No.

Magistrate Judge VanDervort submitted to the court his

Proposed Findings and Recommendation on November 12, 2015, in
which he recommended that the district court deny plaintiff’s
application to proceed without prepayment of fees or costs,
dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, and remove this matter from the
court’s docket.

(Doc. No. 5).

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),
the parties were allotted fourteen days, plus three mailing
days, in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge

1 

VanDervort’s Findings and Recommendation.

The failure to file

such objections constitutes a waiver of the right to a de novo
review by this court.

Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th

Cir. 1989).
Plaintiff failed to file any objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s Findings and Recommendation within the seventeen-day
period.

Having reviewed the Findings and Recommendation filed

by Magistrate Judge VanDervort, the court adopts the findings
and recommendation contained therein.
Accordingly, the court hereby ADOPTS the factual and legal
analysis contained within the PF&R, DENIES plaintiff’s
application to proceed without prepayment of fees or costs,
(Doc. No. 1), DISMISSES plaintiff’s complaint, (Doc. No. 2), and
DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the court’s docket.
The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and plaintiff,
pro se.
It is SO ORDERED this 10th day of December, 2015.

ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

2