Jay’Len D. Bell v. Saint Albans Police Department, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. West Virginia
• Decided: October 14, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00486
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

CHARLESTON DIVISION

JAY’LEN D. BELL,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-cv-00486

SAINT ALBANS POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

PROPOSED FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION

This matter is assigned to the Honorable Thomas E. Johnston, United States District Judge, and by standing order entered on September 1, 2024, and filed in this case on August 5, 2025, this matter is referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for submission of proposed findings and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (ECF No. 3.) On August 28, 2025, the undersigned entered an Order and Notice notifying Plaintiff that his Complaint, as presently pled, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and granting Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint by no later than September 29, 2025. (ECF No. 4). Plaintiff was advised that his failure to amend by that deadline or otherwise comply with the Court’s Order would result in the undersigned recommending that the case be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. (Id.). Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint by the deadline or otherwise move for an extension.1

1 On October 6, 2025, the Court received correspondence from Plaintiff claiming that he had not received copies of case filings since filing his Complaint. (ECF No. 5). The Court notes that copies of all filings entered on the District Judge DISMISS this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The parties are notified that this Proposed Findings and Recommendation is hereby FILED, and a copy will be submitted to the Honorable Thomas E. Johnston, United States District Judge. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of the filing of this Proposed Findings and Recommendation to file with the Clerk of this Court specific written objections identifying the portions of the Proposed Findings and Recommendation to which objection is made and the basis of such objection. Extension of this time period may be granted by the presiding District Judge for good cause shown. Copies of any objections shall be provided to the opposing party or, if it is

represented by counsel, to its counsel, and to Judge Johnston. Failure to file written objections as set forth above shall constitute a waiver of de novo review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984).

. shall file with the clerk his . . . complete name and address where pleadings, notices, orders, and other papers may be served on him . . . . A pro se party must advise the clerk promptly of any changes in name, address, and telephone number.” LR Civ. P. 83.5.

Plaintiff emphasizes in his pleadings that he is proceeding “[i]n Propria Persona, not pro se.” (ECF No. 2-1) (emphasis in original). However, both terms refer to a litigant who appears before the court on his own behalf without an attorney. “Black's Law Dictionary . . . explains that the latter term was formerly a rule in pleading that pleas to the jurisdiction of the court must be pled in propria persona, because if pleaded by an attorney they admit the jurisdiction ...” Liebig v. Kelley–Allee, 923 F. Supp. 778 n. 1 (E.D. N.C. 1996); see also Hurt v. Bank of Am., No. 3:12CV184- REP-DJN, 2012 WL 12904236, at *1 (E.D. Va. July 11, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:12CV184, 2012 WL 12904087 (E.D. Va. Sept. 21, 2012), aff'd sub nom. Hurt v. Bank of Am. BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP, 511 F. App’x 256 (4th Cir. 2013). Because the distinction makes no difference, the Court will use the term “pro se.” 2 The Clerk is DIRECTED to file this Proposed Findings and Recommendation and to mail a copy of the same to Plaintiff and to transmit a copy to counsel of record. ENTERED: October 14, 2025

VV YW Dwane L. Tinsley . __ United States Magistrate Judge