Kesterson v. Toler et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting Magistrate Judge Stanley's 35 Proposed Findings and Recommendation; DISMISSING plantiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A; denying plaintiff's 20 and 32 Requests for a court order for evidence from the Raleigh County Public Defender's Office and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this action from the active docket of this court. Signed by Judge David A. Faber on 7/7/2009. (cc: plaintiff, attys) (mkw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON
ROY KESTERSON, Plaintiff, v. DAVE TOLER, et al., Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09-0085
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the court are plaintiff's complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. No. 1) and requests for a court order for evidence from the Raleigh County Public Defender's Office (Doc. Nos. 20, 32). By Standing Order entered August 1, 2006, and
filed in this case on January 30, 2009, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mary E. Stanley. Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Standing Order directs Magistrate Judge Stanley to submit proposed findings and recommendation concerning the disposition of this matter. Magistrate Judge Stanley
submitted her Proposed Findings and Recommendation ("PF & R") on February 24, 2009, recommending that this court dismiss plaintiff's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and deny plaintiff's requests for evidence. (Doc. No. 35.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties were allotted ten days, plus three mailing days, in which
to file any objections to Magistrate Judge Stanley's PF & R. Under § 636(b), the failure of any party to file objections within the appropriate time frame constitutes a waiver of that 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 party "makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations." F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Plaintiff submitted his objections on March 2, 2009. No. 36.) (Doc. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687
In his objections, plaintiff restates the relief he
seeks through his complaint, but does not address the grounds on which the magistrate judge recommended dismissal: that plaintiff's challenge to his confinement must be brought through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursued first in state court; and that plaintiff must demonstrate that his conviction or sentence has been reversed, expunged, or declared invalid before he may pursue damages for unconstitutional imprisonment through a § 1983 action. (Doc. No. 35 at 5.) His objections are therefore
irrelevant and unresponsive to the reasoning contained in the PF & R, and must be overruled on that ground, as they do not "direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations." Orpiano, 687 F.2d at 47.
Having reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Stanley, the court (1) ADOPTS the findings and conclusions set forth therein; (2) DISMISSES plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; (3) DENIES plaintiff's requests for a court order for evidence from the Raleigh County Public Defender's Office (Doc. Nos. 20, 32); and (4) DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this action from the active docket of this court. The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to plaintiff and to all counsel of record. It is SO ORDERED this 7th day of July, 2009. ENTER: David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge
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?