Taylor v. Ballard et al

Filing 15

ORDER accepting and incorporating the 14 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; denying as moot the 4 Motion to Dismiss the initial Complaint filed by Iotov, Rose; denying as moot the 11 Motion to Dismiss the initia l Complaint filed by Robert Rhodes, David Ballard; and denying the 6 Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint filed by Rhodes, David Ballard. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 8/15/2016. (cc: 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. 2:15-cv-16550

WARDEN DAVID BALLARD, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley
for submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On July 22, 2016, Judge Tinsley submitted his Proposed
Findings and Recommendations [ECF No. 14] (“PF&R”). The PF&R recommends the
court DENY all three pending motions: the Motion to Dismiss the initial Complaint
filed by defendants Iotov and Rose [ECF. No. 4], the Motion to Dismiss the initial
Complaint filed by defendants Ballard and Rhodes [ECF No. 6], and the Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Complaint filed by Ballard and Rhodes [ECF No. 11]. No party
filed objections—timely or otherwise—to the PF&R.
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.”
1

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This 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 recommendation to which no objections are
addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).
Because the parties have not filed objections, the court ACCEPTS and
INCORPORATES herein the PF&R and orders judgment consistent therewith.
Accordingly, the court DENIES as moot the Motion to Dismiss the initial Complaint
filed by Iotov and Rose [ECF. No. 4], DENIES as moot the Motion to Dismiss the
initial Complaint filed by Ballard and Rhodes [ECF No. 6], and DENIES the Motion
to Dismiss the Amended Complaint filed by Ballard and Rhodes [ECF No. 11].
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record
and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

2

August 15, 2016