Simpson v. City of Charleston et al

Filing 32

ORDER accepting and incorporating the 24 Proposed Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; denying the 13 Motion to Dismiss as it pertains to Officer Lightner; granting said motion to dismiss, without prejudice, as it pertains to the City of Charleston; directing the City of Charleston removed from the style of this case. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 12/12/2013. (cc: plaintiff; attys; any unrepresented party) (taq)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION

CORY A. SIMPSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-08766

CITY OF CHARLESTON, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This action was referred to the Honorable Cheryl A. Eifert, United States Magistrate Judge,
for submission to this court of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On November 20, 2013, the Magistrate Judge submitted
findings of fact and recommended that the court grant in part and deny in part the defendants’
motion to dismiss [Docket 13] and dismiss the City of Charleston from this action for failure to
state a claim. Neither party has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and
recommendations.
A district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C). This court is not, however, required to review, under a de novo standard or any other
standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the
findings or recommendation to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
150 (1985). As the parties have not filed objections in this case, the court accepts and incorporates

herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The court accordingly DENIES
the motion to dismiss [Docket 13] as it pertains to Officer Lightner, GRANTS the motion to
dismiss [Docket 13], without prejudice, as it pertains to the City of Charleston, and DIRECTS the
Clerk to remove the City of Charleston from the style of this case.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.
ENTER:

2

December 12, 2013