Pearson v. Stock et al
Filing
35
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court adopts Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn's 33 PF&R as follows: 1)Defendants Stock, Rife, and Lucas' 26 Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment, is GRANTED; 2) Plaintiff 9;s 3 Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice as to Defendants Stock, Rife, and Lucas; 3)Plaintiff's 3 Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice as to Defendants Martinez and Mouse; and 4) The Clerk is directed to remove this matter from the docket of the court. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 5/26/2017. (cc: Plaintiff; counsel of record) (mk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
CHRISTIAN PEARSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-05271
J. STOCK, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By Standing Order, this matter was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn for submission of
proposed findings and recommendations (“PF&R”) for disposition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). See Doc. No. 7.
Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn submitted to the court his PF&R
on April 10, 2017, in which he recommended that the court grant
Defendants Stock, Rife, and Lucas’ “Motion to Dismiss, or in the
Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment,” see Doc. No. 26;
dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, see Doc. No. 3, with prejudice as
to Defendants Stock, Rife, and Lucas; dismiss Plaintiff’s
Complaint, see Doc. No. 3, without prejudice as to Defendants
Martinez and Mouse; and remove this matter from the court’s
docket.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties were
allotted seventeen days in which to file any objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s PF&R.
The failure of any party to file such
objections within the time allotted constitutes a waiver of such
party’s right to a de novo review by this court.
Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989).
See Snyder v.
Neither party filed
any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s PF&R within the
required time period.
Accordingly, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn’s
PF&R as follows:
1) Defendants Stock, Rife, and Lucas’ “Motion to Dismiss, or
in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment,” see
Doc. No. 26, is GRANTED;
2) Plaintiff’s Complaint, see Doc. No. 3, is DISMISSED with
prejudice as to Defendants Stock, Rife, and Lucas;
3) Plaintiff’s Complaint, see Doc. No. 3, is DISMISSED
without prejudice as to Defendants Martinez and Mouse;
and
4) The Clerk is directed to remove this matter from the
docket of the court.
The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and to
Plaintiff.
2
It is SO ORDERED this 26th day of May, 2017.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge
3
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?