Jones v. United States

• Court: District Court, N.D. West Virginia
• Decided: January 3, 2018
• Docket: 2:17-cv-00134
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA ELKINS

PRINCE JONES, Plaintiff, V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-134 (BAILEY) UNITED STATES, LT. J. RIFFLE, OFFICER J. HUNT, WARDEN DAVID WILSON, LT. HOWELL, CLARK BRETT FRIEND, DANIEL PRUSA, CHRISTOPHER MEYER, JOHN PYLES, and OFFICER JOHN DOE, Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On this day, the above-styled matter came before this Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert [Doc. 8]. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Seibert for submission of a proposed report and a recommendation (“R & R"). Magistrate Judge Seibert filed his R&R on November 30, 2017, wherein he recommends this Court dismiss the action without prejudice and deny the pending Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [Doc. 2]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 {b)(1)(c), this Court is required to make a de novo review of those portions of the magistrate judge’s findings to which objection is made. However, 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). In addition, failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the right to appeal this Court's Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). Here, objections fo Magistrate Judge Seibert’s R&R were due within fourteen (14) days of receipt, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The docket reflects that service was accepted on December 6, 2017 [Doc. 11]. No objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for clear error. Upon careful review of the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 8] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge’s report. Accordingly, this Court ORDERS that the plaintiff's complaint [Doc. 1] be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Additionally, the Motion to Proceed /n Forma Pauperis [Doc. 2] is DENIED AS MOOT. This Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the respondents and to STRIKE this case from the active docket of this Court. It is so ORDERED. The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to any counsel of record and to mail a copy to the pro se petitioner. DATED: January 3, 2018. heel) U STATES DISTRICT JUDGE