Adkins v. Davis et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court ADOPTS the 7 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn, DENIES plaintiff's 6 Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, DISMISSES this matter without prejudice, and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the court's docket. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 4/4/2018. (cc: plaintiff, pro se and counsel of record) (arb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
RANDAL ADKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-04259

CO JERRY DAVIS et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court is plaintiff’s complaint alleging
defendants violated his constitutional and civil rights pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

ECF No. 1.

By Standing Order, the 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).

On

November 28, 2017, the magistrate judge submitted his PF&R, in
which he recommended that the district court (1) deny
plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees
and costs (ECF No. 6), (2) dismiss this matter without prejudice
due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative
remedies

(ECF No. 1), and (3) remove the matter from the

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

1

in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn’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 Aboulhosn’s Findings and Recommendation within the
seventeen-day period.1

Having reviewed the Findings and

Recommendation, the court adopts the findings and recommendation
contained therein.
The court hereby ADOPTS the factual and legal analysis
contained within the PF&R, (ECF No. 7), DENIES plaintiff’s
application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs,
(ECF No. 6), DISMISSES this matter without prejudice, (ECF No.
1), 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.

1

Plaintiff did file an Amended Complaint with the court on
January 8, 2018, which included no objections to the Proposed
Findings and Recommendation. See ECF No. 8. Even if the
Amended Complaint did suffice as an objection – and it does not
- plaintiff fails to assert that he properly exhausted his
administrative remedies. Id. In response, the court directed
the Clerk of Court to mail plaintiff a form complaint and a copy
of the “Pro Se Handbook.” See ECF No. 9.
2

It is SO ORDERED this 4th day of April, 2018.

ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

3