Turner v. Zigler et al
Filing
5
ORDER: adopting the 4 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; ordering that Plaintiff's 1 Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees or Costs be DENIED; ordering that Plaintiff's 2 Complaint be DISMISSED and stricken from the docket of this Court. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 10/13/2011. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BECKLEY DIVISION
CHARLES D. TURNER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11-cv-00620
JOEL ZIEGLER,
Respondent.
ORDER
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and
Costs (Document 1) and Plaintiff’s Complaint (Document 2). By Order (Document 3) entered on
September 14, 2011, 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 September 20, 2011, the Magistrate Judge submitted Proposed Findings and
Recommendation (“PF & R”) (Document 4) wherein he recommended that this Court deny
Plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees, 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 were due by
October 7, 2011. No objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as
contained in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation be ADOPTED and further ORDERS
that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1) be
DENIED and Plaintiff's Complaint (Document 2) be DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the
docket of this Court.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to any
unrepresented party.
ENTER: October 13, 2011
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?