Greene v. Sadler et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court hereby OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections and CONFIRMS and ACCEPTS the factual and legal analysis contained within the 5 Proposed Findings and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff' s 1 Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs; DISMISSES Plaintiff's 3 Complaint filed by Michael J. Greene, and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this matter from the court's docket. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 7/26/2016. (cc: Plaintiff, pro se) (mk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
MICHAEL J. GREENE,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-15723

WILLIAM J. SADLER, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I.

Introduction

By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of proposed
findings and recommendation (“PF&R”).

Magistrate Judge

VanDervort submitted his proposed findings and recommendation on
December 7, 2015.

In that Proposed Findings and Recommendation,

the magistrate judge recommended that this 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.
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 VanDervort’s
Findings and Recommendation.

The failure of any party to file

such objections constitutes a waiver of such party's right to a
de novo review by this court.

Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363

(4th Cir. 1989); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

Moreover,

this court need not conduct a de novo review when a petitioner
“makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the
court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings
and recommendations.”
Cir. 1982).

Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th

Petitioner filed objections to the Proposed Findings

and Recommendation on December 17, 2015.

Because petitioner

filed his objections timely, this court has conducted a de novo
review of the record as to those objections.

See 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is
made.”).
II.

Background

On December 2, 2015, plaintiff filed the instant complaint,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against William J. Sadler, Mercer
County Circuit Court Judge; George V. Sitler, Chief Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney for Mercer County; Bill Huffman, Attorney;
and Scott A. Ash, Mercer County Prosecuting Attorney.
Specifically, Greene claims that, on May 6, 2012, he entered into
an unknowing and unintelligent plea of guilty in Mercer County
Circuit Court.
Magistrate Judge VanDervort recommended dismissal of
plaintiff’s complaint for several reasons.

2

First, he noted that

plaintiff’s § 1983 claim is not cognizable pursuant to Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because his criminal conviction
has not been invalidated.

Magistrate Judge VanDervort also

concluded that the claims against Judge Sadler should be
dismissed because he is protected from suit by judicial immunity.
As to the claims against defendants Ash and Sitler, Magistrate
Judge VanDervort recommended dismissal on the basis of
prosecutorial immunity.

Finally, he noted that any § 1983 claim

against defendant Huffman must fail because Huffman was not a
state actor.
Rather than address these obstacles to suit, Greene’s
objections are directed to the merits of his case.

Therefore,

his objections do not direct the court to a specific error in the
magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations and,
therefore, they are without merit.
III.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the court hereby OVERRULES
plaintiff’s objections and CONFIRMS and ACCEPTS the factual and
legal analysis contained within the Proposed Findings and
Recommendation.

Accordingly, the court DENIES plaintiff’s

application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs;
DISMISSES plaintiff’s complaint, and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove
this matter from the court’s docket.

3

The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and to
plaintiff pro se.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of July, 2016.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

4