Dalton v. W.Va. Division of Corrections et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting 7 Proposed Findings and Recommendation; this action is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 7/26/2010. (cc: pro se plaintiff, attys, and the United States Magistrate Judge) (mkw)

Download PDF
Dalton v. W.Va. Division of Corrections et al Doc. 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON 1STARR DALTON, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-00214 WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, DAVID BALLARD, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, JIM RUBENSTEIN, Commissioner, West Virginia Division of Corrections, CPT. JASON COLLINS, LT. MARGARET CLIFFORD, SGT. CURTIS DIXON, CPS. CLINT RYAN, CPL. NATE KENDRICK, MICHAEL ANGEL, GARRATTE ADAMS, and BRIAN GREENWOOD, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This action was previously referred to Mary E. Stanley, United States Magistrate Judge, who has submitted her Proposed Findings and Recommendation pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommendation entered by the magistrate judge on June 23, 2010. The magistrate judge recommends that plaintiff's case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee. The parties have not objected to the Proposed Findings and Dockets.Justia.com Recommendation. is correct. The court concludes the recommended disposition Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendation be, and it hereby is, adopted by the court; 2. This action be, and it hereby is, dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this written opinion and order to the pro se plaintiff, all counsel of record, and the United States Magistrate Judge. DATED: July 26, 2010 John T. Copenhaver, Jr. 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?