Bailey v. Beckley VA Medical Center et al
Filing
33
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: adopting the 32 Proposed Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge; granting the United States' 22 Motion to Dismiss the Beckley V.A. Medical Center, Dr. Sertoz, Dr. Taylor, Dr. Harper, K. Grimes, K. McGraw and Dr. Berryman and Substitute the United States; granting the United States' 27 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Comply with the West Virginia Medical Practice Liability Act; dismissing the Plaintiff's 2 and 10 Complaints and removing this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 5/31/2018. (cert. cc: attys; any unrepresented party; Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn) (btm)
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-04615
BECKLEY VA MEDICAL CENTER, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On December 26, 2017, the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint (Document 2)
in this matter alleging medical negligence. The Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (Document
10) on February 20, 2018.
Pending in the matter are the United States Motion to Dismiss the Beckely V.A. Medical
Center, Dr. Sertoz, Dr. Taylor, Dr. Harper, K. Grimes, K. McGraw and Dr. Berryman and
Substitute the United States (Document 22) filed on March 21, 2018; and the United States’ Motion
to Dismiss for Failure to Comply with the West Virginia Medical Practice Liability Act (Document
27) filed on March 27, 2018.
By Standing Order (Document 3) entered on December 26, 2017, this 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.
1
On May 7, 2018, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and
Recommendation (Document 32) wherein it is recommended that the United States Motion to
Dismiss the Beckley V.A. Medical Center, Dr. Sertoz, Dr. Taylor, Dr. Harper, K. Grimes, K.
McGraw and Dr. Berryman and Substitute the United States (Document 22) be granted; the United
States’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Comply with the West Virginia Medical Practice Liability
Act (Document 27) be granted; the Plaintiff’s Complaints (Documents 2 & 10) be dismissed; and
the matter be removed from the Court’s docket.
Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due
by May 24, 2018, and none were filed by either party.
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 United States Motion to Dismiss the Beckley V.A.
Medical Center, Dr. Sertoz, Dr. Taylor, Dr. Harper, K. Grimes, K. McGraw and Dr. Berryman
and Substitute the United States (Document 22) be GRANTED; the United States’ Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to Comply with the West Virginia Medical Practice Liability Act (Document
27) be GRANTED; the Plaintiff’s Complaints (Documents 2 & 10) be DISMISSED; and this
matter be REMOVED from the Court’s docket.
2
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
May 31, 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?