Hallman-Warner et al v. Bluefield State College et al

Filing 58

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court GRANTS defendants' 37 Motion to Strike Reply to Response, DENIES defendants' 41 Motion to Strike plaintiff's supplement and GRANTS defendants' 28 Motion to Dismiss as set forth herein. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the court's docket. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 3/13/2018. (cc: Plaintiffs, pro se; attys) (mk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
SHELIA HALLMAN-WARNER and
ROSCOE OLIVER WARNER,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-02882

BLUEFIELD STATE COLLEGE, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court is defendants’ (1) Motion to
Dismiss the Complaint, (ECF No. 28), (2) Motion to Strike Reply
to Response, (ECF No. 37), and (3) Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’
Supplement to Complaint, (ECF No. 41).

By Standing Order, this

matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A.
Eifert for submission of findings and recommendations regarding
disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

ECF. No. 9.

Magistrate Judge Eifert submitted to the court her Proposed
Findings and Recommendation on January 19, 2018, in which she
recommended that the district court (1) grant defendants’ motion
to strike plaintiffs’ reply to defendants’ response, (2) deny
defendants’ motion to strike plaintiffs’ supplement, and (3)
grant defendants’ motion to dismiss.

See ECF No. 48.

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

Eifert’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).
Plaintiffs 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 Eifert, the court hereby ADOPTS the factual
and legal analysis contained within the Findings and
Recommendation and (1) GRANTS defendants’ motion to strike reply
to response, (ECF No. 37), (2) DENIES defendants’ motion to
strike plaintiffs’ supplement, (ECF No. 41), and (3) GRANTS
defendants’ motion to dismiss as follows:
(1)

Plaintiffs’ Title VII claims are dismissed, with
prejudice;

(2)

Plaintiffs’ unexhausted claims are dismissed, without
prejudice; and

(3)

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment and defamation claims are
dismissed, without prejudice, as variation of these
claims may be filed in state court.

See ECF No. 28. Accordingly, the court 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
plaintiffs, pro se.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of March, 2018.
ENTER:

David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

3