Hagan v. Taylor et al
Filing
47
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 42 Proposed Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; granting the 18 Motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Ballard and Rubenstein with respect to Plaintiff's claims for monetary da mages against those defendants in their official capacities; denying said motion to dismiss in all other respects; and leaving this matter referred to Magistrate Judge Tinsley for additional proceedings concerning Plaintiff's remaining claims. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 8/14/2015. (cc: plaintiff, pro se; counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
WAYNE HAGAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-16692
OFFICER JERED TAYLOR, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants David Ballard and Jim
Rubenstein [ECF 18]. On May 20, 2014, this action was referred to United States Magistrate
Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). On
July 21, 2015, Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed a PF&R [ECF 42] recommending that this Court
grant the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Ballard and Rubenstein with respect to Plaintiff’s
claims for monetary damages against those defendants in their official capacities and deny the
motion in all other respects.
The Court is not 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 recommendation to
which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file
timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and Plaintiff’s right to appeal this Court’s
Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989);
United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). In addition, 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.”
Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982).
Objections to the PF&R were due on August 7, 2015. To date, no objections have been
filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 42], GRANTS the motion to dismiss
filed by Defendants Ballard and Rubenstein with respect to Plaintiff’s claims for monetary
damages against those defendants in their official capacities [ECF 18], DENIES the motion to
dismiss [ECF 18] in all other respects, and leaves this matter referred to Magistrate Judge Tinsley
for additional proceedings concerning Plaintiff’s remaining claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.
ENTER:
August 14, 2015
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?