Osborne v. Waters

Filing 9

ORDER adopting the 3 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge, directing that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice; denying as moot plaintiff's 6 Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 7/16/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (jkk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
PARKERSBURG DIVISION

TIMOTHY J. OSBORNE,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:12-cv-01864

BOB A. WATERS,
Defendant.

ORDER
This complaint was referred to the Honorable Mary E. Stanley, 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(b)(1)(B). The Magistrate Judge has submitted proposed
findings of fact and has recommended that the court DISMISS the plaintiff=s complaint and this
civil action, with prejudice, based on the application of absolute judicial immunity.
A district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”

28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C). This court is not, however, 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).

As the parties have not filed objections in this case, the court accepts and

incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the
1

court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge, and ORDERS that the complaint be DISMISSED, with prejudice.1

As such, the

plaintiff’s Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees or Costs [Docket 6] is DENIED
as moot.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.

ENTER:

1

July 16, 2012

Since the proposed findings and recommendation was filed, the court received additional documentation from the
plaintiff [Docket 7]. The court has reviewed this information and FINDS that it does not alter Judge Stanley’s
analysis and as a result does not affect the outcome of this action.

2