Glowka v. United States of America et al
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 10 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge and ORDERS (1) that the Plaintiff's Bivens claim alleging a violation of this First and Fifth Amendment rights be DISMISSED for thi s failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted and (2) that this matter be REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings on the Plaintiff's FTCA claim and Bivens claim alleging a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 7/31/2014. (cc: Magistrate Judge VanDervort; attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BECKLEY DIVISION
ADAM M. GLOWKA,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-cv-18500
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and
MEDIC JEFFREY WALKER,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On June 16, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a pro-se Complaint (Document 1). By Standing
Order (Document 2) entered that same date, 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 July 9, 2014, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and
Recommendation (Document 10) wherein it is recommended that this Court dismiss the Plaintiff’s
Bivens claim alleging a violation of his First and Fifth Amendment rights for his failure to state a
claim for which relief may be granted and refer the matter back to the Magistrate Judge for further
proceedings on the Plaintiff’s FTCA claim and Bivens claim alleging a violation of his Eight
Amendment rights.
Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and
Recommendation were due by July 28, 2014.
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: 1) that the Plaintiff’s Bivens claim alleging a violation of his
First and Fifth Amendment rights be DISMISSED for his failure to state a claim for which relief
may be granted; and 2) that this matter be REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further
proceedings on the Plaintiff’s FTCA claim and Bivens claim alleging a violation of his Eight
Amendment rights.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge
VanDervort, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:
2
July 31, 2014
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?