Greene v. Ash et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court OVERRULES the Plaintiff's 9 Objections to the Proposed Findings and Recommendation, ADOPTS the 7 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 3 Complaint, and DISMISSES this matter from the Court's active 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

MICHAEL J. GREENE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No: 1:15-14561

SCOTT A. ASH, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court are plaintiff’s application to
proceed without prepayment of fees, (Doc. No. 1), and complaint.
(Doc. No. 3).

By Standing Order, this matter was referred to

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

(Doc. No. 6).

The magistrate judge submitted his proposed findings and
recommendation (“PF&R”) on November 5, 2015.

(Doc. No. 7).

In

the PF&R, Magistrate Judge VanDervort recommended that the court
deny plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of
fees and costs, dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, and remove this
matter from the court’s docket.

(Doc. No. 7 at 10).

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),
plaintiff was allotted fourteen days, plus three mailing days,

1 

in which to file any objections to the PF&R.
filed an objection on November 19, 2015.

Plaintiff timely

(Doc. No. 9).

However, this “objection” does not argue against the PF&R’s
findings.

In his filing, plaintiff states that he disagrees

with the PF&R’s conclusions, but “do[es] not wish to appeal it.”
(Doc. No. 9 at 1).

Plaintiff states that he instead intends “to

file a new [complaint], and write down/give more information.”
Id.

This argument “do[es] not direct the court to a specific

error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations”
and, as a result, the court need not conduct a de novo review of
such an objection. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir.
1982).

Nonetheless, having reviewed the PF&R, the court concurs

with its findings.
Accordingly, the court OVERRULES plaintiff’s objection to
Magistrate Judge VanDervort’s PF&R.

The court 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.
3), and DISMISSES this matter from the court’s active docket.
The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to counsel of record and to plaintiff, pro se.
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 10th day of December, 2015.
ENTER:

2 

David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge