Riggleman v. Zeigler et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court adopts the 20 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge, ORDERS that Plaintiff's 1 Complaint be DISMISSED, and that this matter be removed from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 9/19/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11-cv-00868
JOEL ZIEGLER, et al.,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
On November 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed his Complaint (Document 1) in this matter claiming
entitlement to relief pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents of Federal Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). By Standing Order (Document 2) entered on November 9, 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).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to screen each case in which a
prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
On August 22, 2012, the Magistrate Judge submitted Proposed Findings and Recommendation
(“PF&R”) (Document 20), 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 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 in this case were
due by September 10, 2012. To date, no party has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's PF&R.
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 Plaintiff’s Complaint (Document 1) be DISMISSED and
this matter be removed from the Court’s docket.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to any
ENTER: September 19, 2012
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?