Vardon v. Stanley
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 6 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; and directing that the plaintiff's action is dismissed. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 12/19/2017. (cc: plaintiff, pro se; counsel of record; United States Magistrate) (taq)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON
JAMES M. VARDON,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-03764
MARY E. STANLEY,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This action was previously referred to Dwane L.
Tinsley, United States Magistrate Judge, who has submitted his
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 September 29,
2017.
The magistrate judge recommends that the court dismiss
the plaintiff’s complaint according to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B).
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has not
objected to the Proposed Findings and Recommendation.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Proposed Findings
and Recommendations be, and hereby is, adopted by the court, and
that the plaintiff’s action be, and hereby is, dismissed.
02/22/2016
Scheduling conference at 4:30 p.m. at the Robert C.
Byrd United States Courthouse in Charleston, before
the undersigned, unless canceled. Lead counsel
directed to appear.
02/29/2016
Entry Clerk is directed to forward copies of this
The of scheduling order.
03/08/2016
Last day to serve F.R. Civ. P 26(a)(1) disclosures.
written opinion and order to the pro se plaintiff, all counsel
The Clerk is requested to transmit this Order and
of record, and the United States Magistrate Judge.
Notice to all counsel of record and to any unrepresented
parties.
ENTER: December 19, 2017
DATED: January 5, 2016
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?