Rivadeneira v. Department of Homeland Security et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting and incorporating herein the 5 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; directing that the Plaintiff's Complaint and this civil action be DISMISSED pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S .C. § 1915A and the dictates of Twombly and Iqbal, as well as pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 4/30/2018. (cc: Magistrate Judge Tinsley; counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)

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

DR. FELIX GUZMAN RIVADENEIRA,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-07656

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On June 12, 2015, the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed his Complaint (Document 1) in
this matter. By Standing Order (Document 2) entered on that date, the matter was referred to the
Honorable Dwane L. Tinsley, 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.
On April 3, 2018, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and
Recommendation (Document 5) wherein it is recommended that this Court dismiss the Plaintiff’s
Complaint and this civil action pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and the dictates
of Twombly and Iqbal, as well as pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by April
20, 2018, and none were filed by either party.1

The docket reflects that the Proposed Findings and Recommendation mailed to the Petitioner was
returned as undeliverable on April 12, 2018.
1

1

Neither party has timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and
Recommendation. 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 a party’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).
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the Proposed Findings and
Recommendation, and ORDERS that the Plaintiff’s Complaint and this civil action be
DISMISSED pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and the dictates of Twombly and
Iqbal, as well as pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge
Tinsley, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

2

April 30, 2018