Casey v. Orman et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: adopting the 5 Proposed Findings and Recommendations; dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint, titled "Motion for Equitable Emergency Injunction Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. Section 1983; Writ of "Habeas Corpus" Pursuant to ___ U.S.C.A. Section 2241; and Criminal Complaints Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. Section 242; dismissing this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 9/9/2009. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

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

ADAM NICHOLAS CASEY, Plaintiff, v. MR. ORMAN, et al., Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:08-cv-01373

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Adam Casey's Complaint, titled Motion for Equitable Emergency Injunction Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983; Writ of "Habeas Corpus" Pursuant to __ [sic] U.S.C.A. § 2241; and Criminal Complaint(s) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 242 [Docket 1]. By Standing Order entered August 1, 2006, and filed in this case on December 1, 2008, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (PF&R). Magistrate Judge VanDervort filed his PF&R [Docket 10] on August 12, 2009, recommending that this Court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and remove this matter from the Court's docket. 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 the Petitioner'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). In addition, this Court need not conduct a de novo review when a party "makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the Court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations." Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Objections to the PF&R in this case were due on August 28, 2009. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Docket 10], DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint, titled Motion for Equitable Emergency Injunction Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983; Writ of "Habeas Corpus" Pursuant to __ [sic] U.S.C.A. § 2241; and Criminal Complaint(s) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 242 [Docket 1], and DISMISSES this case from the docket. A separate Judgment Order will enter this day implementing the rulings contained herein. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: September 9, 2009

2