Davis v. Southern Regional Jail

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING the 10 Proposed Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; DENYING the Plaintiff's 1 and 5 Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs; DISMISSING without prejudice the Plaintiff's 2 and 6 Complaint and REMOVING this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 7/3/2019. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party; Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn) (btm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BECKLEY DIVISION
ORLANDO D. DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-cv-04009

SOUTHERN REGIONAL JAIL,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On September 20, 2017, the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed an Application to Proceed
Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1) and a letter-form Complaint (Document 2).
By Standing Order (Document 3) entered on that date, the matter was referred to the Honorable
Omar J. Aboulhosn, 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.
By Order (Document 4) entered on September 21, 2017, the Magistrate Judge directed the
Plaintiff to amend his Complaint, advising that failure to do so would result in a recommendation
of the dismissal of the matter. Thereafter, on October 13, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a subsequent
Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 5) and Complaint
(Document 6).
Subsequently, by Order (Document 9) entered on December 21, 2017, the Magistrate
Judge again directed the Plaintiff to amend his Complaint, again advising that failure to do so
1

would result in a recommendation of the dismissal of the matter. There were no additional filings
by the Plaintiff.
On June 7, 2019, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and
Recommendation (Document 10) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny the Plaintiff’s
Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Documents 1 & 5), dismiss the
Plaintiff’s Complaint (Documents 2 & 6) without prejudice, and remove this matter from the
Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation
were due by June 24, 20191.
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 (Documents 1 & 5) be DENIED, the Plaintiff’s Complaint (Documents 2 & 6)
be DISMISSED without prejudice, and this matter be REMOVED from the Court’s docket.

The docket reflects that the Proposed Findings and Recommendation mailed to the Plaintiff was
returned as undeliverable on June 27, 2019.
2

1

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge
Aboulhosn, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

3

July 3, 2019