Henning v. Clifford et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The 6 Proposed Findings and Recommendation is ADOPTED; directing that the 1 Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees or Costs is DENIED; the 2 Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and this matter is REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 3/10/2025. (cc: certified copy to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn, counsel of record, any unrepresented party) (kew)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
DARIUS JORDAN HENNING,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-cv-00349

CAPT. M. CLIFFORD, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On July 12, 2024, the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed an Application to Proceed Without
Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1) and a Complaint (Document 2) in this matter. By
Administrative Order (Document 4) entered on July 15, 2024, the case was referred to the Honorable
Omar J. Aboulhosn, 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.
By Order (Document 5) entered on July 15, 2024, the Plaintiff was directed by the Magistrate
Judge to amend his Complaint by August 16, 2024, to specifically set forth his constitution claims
and state specific facts as to how each defendant violated his constitutional rights. The Plaintiff was
advised therein that failure to amend his Complaint would result in a recommendation of dismissal of
the matter without prejudice. Nothing further was filed by the Plaintiff.
On February 11, 2025, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and
Recommendation (Document 6) wherein it is recommended that the Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed
1

Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1) be denied, the Plaintiff’s Complaint (Document
2) be dismissed without prejudice, and the matter be removed from the Court’s docket.
Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by
February 28, 2025, and none were filed by either party. 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 Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1) be
DENIED, the Plaintiff’s Complaint (Document 2) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and
this matter be REMOVED from the Court’s docket.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge
Aboulhosn, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

2

March 10, 2025