Bailey v. Beckley VA Medical Center
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Denying as moot Plaintiff's 5 Motion for Reconsideration of his application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs; adopting the 9 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by the Magistrate Judge; granti ng the 11 Motion to Dismiss filed by Charley Edward Bailey; dismissing Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice; and removing this action from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 3/15/2018. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party; Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn) (slr) Modified cc: line on 3/15/2018 (slr).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BECKLEY DIVISION
CHARLES EDWARD BAILEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-cv-04614
BECKLEY VA MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On December 26, 2017, the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed an Application to Proceed
Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1) and a Complaint (Document 2) in this matter.
By Standing Order (Document 3) entered on that date, the action 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) dated December 27, 2017, the Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed
Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1) was denied. On January 16, 2018, the
Plaintiff filed a letter-form motion, cross-filed in both Civil Action Nos. 5:17-cv-04614 and 5:17cv-04615, for reconsideration of his application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs
(Document 5 in 5:17-cv-04614).
Based on the Court’s rulings set forth hereinafter, it is
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of his application to proceed without
1
prepayment of fees and cost (Document 5) is DENIED AS MOOT as it relates to Civil Action
No. 5:17-cv-04614.
On February 16, 2018, in Civil Action No 5:17-cv-04615, the Plaintiff filed a Response
(Document 9 therein), advising that he wishes to withdraw Civil Action No. 5:17-cv-04614 and
pursue only Civil Action No. 5:17-cv-04615. By Order (Document 10) dated March 15, 2018,
the Court directed the Clerk to file that Response in Civil Action No. 5:17-cv-04614 as a letterform motion to dismiss action. The same was filed in Civil Action No. 5:17-cv-04614 on that
date (Document 11).
On February 20, 2018, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and
Recommendation (Document 9) wherein it is recommended that the Plaintiff’s letter-form motion
to dismiss action be granted, that the Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without prejudice, and
that this action be removed from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s
Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by March 9, 2018, and none were filed.
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 letter-form motion to dismiss action
2
(Document 11) be GRANTED, that the Plaintiff’s Complaint (Document 2) be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and that this action 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.
ENTER:
3
March 15, 2018
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?