Smith-Bey v. Rose et al

Filing 41

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: adopting the 40 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; granting Defendants' 20 Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment; DISMISSING Plaintiff's 1 Complaint and striking it from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 9/7/2011. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

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

JASON J. SMITH-BEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-cv-00746

SCOTTY ROSE, et al.,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

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 August 17, 2011, the Magistrate Judge submitted
Proposed Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) (Docket 40) wherein it is recommended that
this Court grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment
(Docket 20) and dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Docket 1).
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). To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as
contained in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Docket 40) be ADOPTED, that
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket 20)
be GRANTED, and that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Docket 1) be DISMISSED and STRICKEN from
the Court’s docket.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to any
unrepresented party.
ENTER:

2

September 7, 2011