Djenasevic v. United States Department of Justice et al

Filing 56

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 52 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS that the 31 MOTION of the United States to Substitute be GRANTED, the 35 Motion of the United States to Dismiss be GRANTED, the Plaintiff� 39;s 1 and 9 Complaints be DISMISSED, and that this matter be REMOVED from the Court's docket; the Court ORDERS that the Plaintiff's 11 Affidavit in Support of In Forma Pauperis Status and the 13 Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs be DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 11/10/2014. (cc: Magistrate Judge VanDervort; attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

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

KABIL ANTON DJENASEVIC,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-cv-14596

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On April 14, 2014, the Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed his Complaint (titled Notice of Intention to
File Claim) (Document 1). The Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (titled Complaint) (Document
9) on May 12, 2014. On July 15, 2014, the United States Motion to Substitute (Document 31) was
filed. On July 18, 2014, the United States Motion to Dismiss (Document 35) was filed.
By Standing Order (Document 4) entered on April 14, 2014, 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
October 16, 2014, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation
(Document 52) wherein it is recommended that this Court grant the United States Motion to Substitute
(Document 31), grant the United States Motion to Dismiss (Document 35), dismiss the Plaintiff’s
Complaints (Documents 1 & 9), and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. Objections to the
Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by November 3, 2014.

1

Ne
either party has timely filed objectio to the M
h
f
ons
Magistrate Ju
udge=s Propo
osed Finding and
gs
Recommen
ndation. Th Court is not required to review, u
he
n
under a de n
novo or any other standa the
ard,
factual or legal conc
clusions of the magistr
rate judge a to those portions o the findin or
as
e
of
ngs
ndation to wh
hich no obje
ections are addressed. T
a
Thomas v. A 474 U.S 140, 150 (
Arn,
S.
(1985).
recommen
Failure to file timely objections co
o
onstitutes a waiver of de novo review and a part
w
e
w
ty’s right to appeal
=s
6
ee
der
our,
2d
66
this Court= Order. 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); se also Snyd v. Rideno 889 F.2 1363, 136 (4th
Cir. 1989); United States v. Schron 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984).
nce,
h
Ac
ccordingly, th Court AD
he
DOPTS and incorporate herein the findings an recommen
es
nd
ndation
of the Mag
gistrate Judg as contained in the Pro
ge
oposed Find
dings and Re
ecommendati and OR
ion,
RDERS
that the Un
nited States Motion to Su
M
ubstitute (Do
ocument 31) be GRANT
)
TED, the Un
nited States M
Motion
to Dismiss (Documen 35) be GRANTED, the Plainti
s
nt
G
iff’s Compla
aints (Docu
uments 1 & 9) be
DISMISSED, and tha this matter be REMOV
at
r
VED from th Court’s d
he
docket.
Las
stly, the Co
ourt ORDER that the Plaintiff’s M 12, 2014, Affidavi in Suppor of In
RS
May
it
rt
Forma Pa
auperis Statu (Documen 11) and the Plaintiff May 13, 2014, Appli
us
nt
t
f’s
ication to P
Proceed
Without Pr
repayment of Fees and Costs (Docum 13) be DENIED A MOOT.
C
ment
AS
The Court DIR
RECTS the Clerk to sen a certifie copy of t
nd
ed
this Order to Magistrate Judge
o
e
o
resented par
rty.
VanDervort, counsel of record, and any unrepr
ENTER:
E

2

November 10, 2014
r