Jackson v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: the Court ADOPTS the 7 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge, ORDERS that Plaintiff's 1 Complaint be DISMISSED, and ORDERS that this matter be removed from its docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 5/9/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BECKLEY DIVISION
RODNEY L. JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09cv-00560
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On April 28, 2009, Plaintiff, acting pro se and formerly incarcerated at FCI Beckley in
Beckley, West Virginia, filed his Complaint (Document 1) in this matter in the Middle District of
Georgia claiming entitlement to relief pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents of
Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This case was subsequently transferred to
this Court. (Documents 2 & 3) By Standing Order (Document 4) entered on May 19, 2009, this
action was referred to the Honorable R. Clarke VanDervort, 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(b)(1)(B). On April 19, 2012, the Magistrate Judge submitted
Proposed Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) (Document 7), wherein it is recommended
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 ob
bjections con
nstitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Pe
w
w
etitioner's rig to appea this
ght
al
Court's Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(
O
(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th
a
r,
6
Cir.1989); United St
tates v. Schr
ronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir.19
F
984). In add
dition, this C
Court
need not conduct a de novo review when a party “make general an conclusor objections that
d
p
es
nd
ry
do not direct the Court to a specific error in th magistrat
he
te's propose findings and
ed
recomme
endations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44 , 47 (4th C
Cir.1982). O
Objections to the
PF&R in this case we due by May 7, 2012. To date, no party has f
n
ere
M
.
o
filed objectio
ons.
Accordingly, the Cour ADOPT and in
A
rt
TS
ncorporates herein the findings and
e
recomme
endation of the Magi
f
istrate Judg as conta
ge
ained in th Proposed Findings and
he
Recomm
mendation (D
Document 7) and ORD
),
DERS that Plaintiff’s C
Complaint (
(Document 1) be
DISMISSED. The Court further ORDERS that this ma
C
r
atter be remo
oved from its docket.
s
The Court DI
T
IRECTS the Clerk to se a copy o this Orde to counsel of record a to
e
end
of
er
l
and
any unrep
presented pa
arty.
ENT
TER:
2
May 9, 2012
y
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?