Broadnax v. Pugh, et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the 6 Proposed Findings and Recommendation; and ORDERS that Plaintiff's 1 Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs be DENIED, Plaintiff's 2 Complaint be DISMISSED, and this matter be REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 11/20/2017. (cc: USMJ Aboulhosn; attys; any unrepresented party) (msa)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
ETHELBERT CLARENCE DEFOLI
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-cv-03736
EMMITT PUGH, et al.,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On March 26, 2015, an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs
(Document 1) and a Complaint (Document 2) were filed by the Plaintiff in this matter. By
Standing Order (Document 3) 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. Subsequently,
by Order (Document 5) entered on January 6, 2016, the case was referred to the Honorable Omar
J. Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings of fact and
recommendation for disposition.
On October 24, 2017, Magistrate Aboulhosn submitted a Proposed Findings and
Recommendation (Document 6) wherein it is recommended that the Plaintiff’s Application to
Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs be denied, the Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed,
and this matter be removed from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s
Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by November 13, 2017.
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 that the Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment
of Fees and Costs (Document 1) be DENIED, the Plaintiff’s Complaint (Document 2) be
DISMISSED, and 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
Aboulhosn, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.
November 20, 2017
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?