Jackson v. Morgan

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the 15 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS that Plaintiff's 2 Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees be DENIED and Plaintiff's 1 Complaint be DISMISSED. The Court further ORDERS that this matter be removed from the docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 5/14/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (msa)

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

VAUGHN D. JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-cv-00954

E. LAVOYD MORGAN, JR.,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On August 12, 2009, Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed his Complaint (Document 1) in this
matter in the Northern District of West Virginia claiming entitlement to relief pursuant to 42
U.S.C. §1983. The case was subsequently transferred to this Court. (Documents 9 & 10) By
Standing Order (Document 11) entered on August 21, 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 23, 2012, the Magistrate Judge submitted Proposed Findings and
Recommendation (“PF&R”) (Document 15), wherein it is recommended that this Court deny
Plaintiff’s Application To Proceed Without Prepayment Of Fees (Document 2), 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
U
6(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenou 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th
r
ur,
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, 68 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Ci 1982). O
O
87
ir.
Objections t the
to
PF&R in this case were due by May 10, 2012. To da no party has filed objections t the
n
w
y
2
ate,
y
to
Magistra Judge's PF
ate
F&R.
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 15), and ORDERS th Plaintiff Applicat
1
O
hat
f’s
tion To Pro
oceed
Without Prepayment Of Fees (D
t
Document 2) be DENIE and Plain
)
ED
ntiff’s Comp
plaint (Docu
ument
1) be DIS
SMISSED. The Court further ORD
f
DERS that th matter be removed fr
his
e
rom the dock
ket.
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 14, 2012
y