Glowka v. United States of America et al
Filing
38
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the 33 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS that the Defendants' 16 Motion to Dismi ss (or in the alternative, motion for summary judgment be GRANTED, the Plaintiff's 21 Motion in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be DENIED, The Plaintiff's 25 Motion to Amend Complaint be DENIED, the Plaintiff's 26 Motion for Default Judgment be DENIED, the Plaintiff's 1 Complaint be DISMISSED and this matter be REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 07/14/2015. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (msa)
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) in the above-styled
matter. By Standing Order (Document 2) entered on that date, the matter 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.
For the Court’s consideration are the following motions: 1) the Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss (or in the alternative, motion for summary judgment) (Document 16) filed on September
4, 2014, 2) the Plaintiff’s Motion in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Document 21)
filed on October 6, 2014, 3) the Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint (Document 25) filed on
October 6, 2014 and 4) the Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Document 26) filed on
October 6, 2014.
1
On May 27, 2015, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and
Recommendation (Document 33) wherein it is recommended that this Court: 1) grant the
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (or in the alternative, motion for summary judgment), 2) deny the
Plaintiff’s Motion in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, 3) deny the Plaintiff’s Motion
to Amend the Complaint, 4) deny the Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, 5) dismiss the
Plaintiff’s Complaint and 6) remove this matter from the Court’s docket.
Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were
originally due by June 15, 2015. However, the deadline was extended to July 7, 2015, by Order
(Document 36) entered June 23, 2015. Neither party filed timely objections to the Magistrate
Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation.1
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 that:
1) the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (or in the
alternative, motion for summary judgment) (Document 16) be GRANTED, 2) the Plaintiff’s
1
On June 17, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension to File Objections (Document 35) wherein he requested a
deadline extension until July 17, 2015, within which to file his objections. The Court’s June 23, 2015 Order
(Document 36) granted an extension until July 7, 2015. However, the docket reveals that the copy of the aforesaid
Order mailed to the Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable on July 6, 2015 (Document 37).
2
Motion in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Document 21) be DENIED, 3) the
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint (Document 25) be DENIED, 4) the Plaintiff’s Motion
for Default Judgment (Document 26) be DENIED, 5) the Plaintiff’s Complaint (Document 1) be
DISMISSED and 6) 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
July 14, 2015
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?