Williams v. West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 113

ORDER adopting and incorporating the 111 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Tinsley; GRANTING Defendant J.T. Binion's 76 MOTION for Summary Judgment; GRANTING Defendants Tina Fouts-Sneed and JessicaThornhill's [7 8] MOTION for Summary Judgment; DENYING Plaintiff's 82 MOTION for Summary Judgment re: First Amendment Deprovation and Plaintiff's 83 MOTION WITH MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT for Summary Judgment re: Prime Care Defendants; DISMISSING this matter with prejudice from the docket of the court. Signed by Senior Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 7/3/2024. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties; United States Magistrate Judge Tinsley) (skm)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON MICHAEL DEANDRE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00067 TINA FOUTS-SNEED, J.T. BINION, and JESSICA THORNHILL, Defendants. ORDER Pending before the court is the Proposed Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley. ECF No. 111. The Magistrate Judge recommends granting the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by defendant J.T. Binion, ECF No. 76; granting the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by defendants Tina Fouts-Sneed and Jessica Thornhill, ECF No. 78; denying the Motions for Summary Judgment filed by plaintiff, ECF Nos. 82, 83; and dismissing this matter from the docket of the court. Id. at 27-28. In reviewing a PF&R, the court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Upon the filing of an objection to a PF&R, the court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. Failure to object to a PF&R constitutes waiver of de novo review, in which case the court reviews the PF&R for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 73 Advisory Committee notes. There being no objections to the PF&R and the time for filing objections having elapsed, and the court having reviewed the PF&R for clear error and finding none, it is ORDERED that the PF&R be, and hereby is, adopted by the court and incorporated herein. It is, therefore, ORDERED as follows: 1. Defendant J.T. Binion’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 76, be, and hereby is, GRANTED; 2. Defendants Tina Fouts-Sneed and Jessica Thornhill’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 78, be, and hereby is, GRANTED; 3. Plaintiff’s Motions for Summary Judgment, ECF Nos. 82, 83, be, and hereby is, DENIED; 4. This matter be, and hereby is, DISMISSED with prejudice from the docket of the court. The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this order to any unrepresented parties, all counsel of record, and the United States Magistrate Judge. ENTER: July 3, 2024 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?