Logan v. US District Court House
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 5 Proposed Findings and Recommendation; denying plaintiff's 4 Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs; and dismissing this action with prejudice. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 7/28/2011. (cc: pro se plaintiff; attys; United States Magistrate Judge) (taq)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON
NINA AURORA J. LOGAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 2:10-01270
US DISTRICT COURT HOUSE,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
US COURT OF CLAIMS, and
COUNTIES OF WV,
Defendant.
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 24, 2011.
The magistrate judge recommends dismissal of plaintiff’s
complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.
The magistrate judge further recommends
that plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of
Fees and Costs be denied.
The plaintiff has not objected to the
Proposed Findings and Recommendation.
The court concludes the
recommended disposition is correct.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1.
The Proposed Findings and Recommendation be, and it
hereby is, adopted by the court;
2.
Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without
Prepayment of Fees and Costs be, and it hereby is, denied; and
3.
This action be, and it hereby is, dismissed with
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 28, 2011
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
United States District Judge
2
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?