Taylor v. Ruebenstein et al

Filing 100

ORDER adopting and incorporating the 90 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; granting the defendants' respective 74 Motion and 84 Motion to Dismiss in part, with respect to the plaintiff's claims for monet ary damages against defendants Hudson, Penick, Perry, and McCloud in their official capacities, dismissing said claims; this matter is referred back to Judge Tinsley for additional proceedings concerning the plaintiff's remaining claims. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 11/25/2015. (cc: United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley; counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)

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

STEVEN J. TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-33339

JIM RUEBENSTEIN, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

Pending before the court are two Motions to Dismiss in Part [ECF Nos. 74 & 81] filed by
defendants Hudson, Penick, Perry, and McCloud. These motions were referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission to this court of proposed findings of fact and
recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On October 23, 2015,
Judge Tinsley submitted his Findings of Fact and Recommendations [ECF No. 90], which
recommended that the court GRANT the motions with respect to the plaintiff’s claims for
monetary damages against these defendants in their official capacities. Further, Judge Tinsley
recommended that the court leave this matter referred to him for additional proceedings concerning
the plaintiff’s remaining claims.
Neither party filed objections to the Findings of Fact 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). The court is
not, however, required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal

conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendations to
which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Because the parties
have not filed objections, the court adopts and incorporates herein the Findings of Fact and
Recommendations [ECF No. 90]. The court GRANTS the defendants’ respective Motion to
Dismiss in Part [ECF Nos. 74 & 81] with respect to the plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages
against defendants Hudson, Penick, Perry, and McCloud in their official capacities.1 These claims
are DISMISSED. This matter is REFERRED back to Judge Tinsley for additional proceedings
concerning the plaintiff’s remaining claims.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to United States
Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.

ENTER:

November 25, 2015

The court does not make any ruling with respect to the plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages against
defendants Hudson, Penick, Perry, and McCloud in their individual capacities.
1

2