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)

Download PDF
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?