Saunders v. Ziegler
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS that the Plaintiff's 5 Application to P roceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs be DENIED, the Plaintiff's Complaints 1 and 4 be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute, and that this matter be REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 12/10/2013. (cc: USMJ VanDervort; attys; any unrepresented party) (msa)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BECKLEY DIVISION
DEE L. ORMAN SAUNDERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:10-cv-01416
JOEL ZIEGLER,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff=s December 28, 2010 letter-form Complaint
(Document 1), January 19, 2011 Amended Complaint (Document 4), and January 19, 2011
Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 5).
By Standing Order (Document 2) entered on December 28, 2010, 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.
On November 22, 2013, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and
Recommendation (Document 13) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny the Plaintiff’s
Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaints,
and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed
Findings and Recommendation were due by December 9, 2013.1
1
The docket reflects that the Proposed Findings and Recommendation mailed to the Plaintiff was
returned as undeliverable on December 5, 2013.
1
Neither party has timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and
Recommendation. 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 5) be DENIED, the Plaintiff’s Complaints (Documents 1 and 4) be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute, 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
VanDervort, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:
2
December 10, 2013
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?