Batiste v. Federal Bureau of Prisons at Beckley Inst.

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the 5 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS t hat Plaintiff's 4 letter form MOTION to Withdraw Complaint be GRANTED and Plaintiff's 1 Letter form Complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that this matter be REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 6/14/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (msa)

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

NARSEAL BATISTE,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-cv-01223

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS AT
BECKLEY, INST.,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff’s April 19, 2012 letter inquiring how to file “a
medical complaint” against the Federal Bureau of Prisons at Beckley regarding the medical
treatment he has received following an “abdominal ailment.” (Letter from Narseal Batiste to
Clerk of Court (March 31, 2012) (Document 1)). In response to the letter, the Clerk of Court
docketed the letter as a letter-form Complaint, informed Plaintiff that the letter was not in the
proper form to serve as a Complaint, and provided him with instructions and forms regarding the
initiation of a Bivens Action. (Letter from Teresa L. Deppner, Deputy Clerk of Court to Narseal
Batiste (April 19, 2012) (Document 3)). Importantly, Plaintiff was directed to complete the
requisite forms and return them to the Court within 30 days. (Id.) On May 1, 2012, the Plaintiff
forwarded another letter to the Court wherein he stated, in pertinent part, the following:
I respectfully submit it is not my desire to pursue a Bivens action or
civil suit at this time. As a matter of fact, I am still in the process of
1

exhausting my administrative remedy process within the BOP. . . .
Moreover, in light of the fact I am still attempting to receive
adequate medical attention to my know [sic] serious medical needs
protected by the Eighth Amendment, any anticipated civil action
will have to be put hold [sic] at this time. Hence, my desire to have
said case number ‘withdrawn’ from the docket at this time.
(Letter from Narseal Batiste to Teresa L. Deppner, Clerk of Court (April 26, 2012) (Document 4)).
By Standing Order (Document 2) entered on April 19, 2012, 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
May 2, 2012, the Magistrate Judge submitted Proposed Findings and Recommendation
(Document 5) wherein it is recommended that this Court view Plaintiff’s May 1, 2012 letter as a
request for voluntary dismissal of this action, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, and that the matter be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure without prejudice and removed 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 Plaintiff’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 his PF&R, Magistrate Judge
VanDervort advised the parties that any objections to the PF&R were due within seventeen (17)
days of the filing of the proposed findings and recommendation. Consequently, any objections to
the PF&R were due on May 21, 2012. To date, no party has filed any objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation.

2

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 letter-form Motion to Withdraw Complaint
(Document 4) be GRANTED, Plaintiff’s letter-form Complaint (Document 1) be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that 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:

3

June 14, 2012