Johnson v. U. S. Postal Service
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 3 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; denying without prejudice the 1 petition for writ of mandamus; dismissing this matter from the docket of the court. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 8/7/2017. (cc: plaintiff; all counsel of record; Magistrate Judge Tinsley) (mks)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
R. WAYNE JOHNSON,
Civil Action No. 2:17-00022
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE,
(and U.S.P.S. JOHN DEOS 1-10),
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The court having received the Proposed Findings and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley,
filed on July 5, 2017, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B); and having reviewed the record in this proceeding;
and there being no objections filed by any party to the proposed
findings and recommendation; and it appearing proper so to do, it
is ORDERED that the findings and conclusions made in the proposed
findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge be, and they
hereby are, adopted by the court.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that petitioner’s petition
for writ of mandamus (ECF No. 1) be, and hereby is, denied without
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this matter is
dismissed from the docket of the court.
Byrd United States Courthouse in Charleston, before
the undersigned, unless canceled. Lead counsel
directed to appear.
Entry of scheduling order.
The Clerk day directed to forward P 26(a)(1) this written
Last is to serve F.R. Civ. copies of disclosures.
opinion and order to the plaintiff, all counsel of record, and the
The Clerk is requested to transmit this Order and
United States Magistrate Judge. and to any unrepresented
Notice to all counsel of record
ENTER: August 7, 5, 2016
DATED: January 2017
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
United States District Judge
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?