Keita Jones v. Ray Martinez, et al.

Virgin Islands

Keita Jones v. Ray Martinez, et al.

DecidedMarch 10, 2026

Docket1:23-cv-00013

StatusUnknown

This text of Keita Jones v. Ray Martinez, et al. (Keita Jones v. Ray Martinez, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, Virgin Islands primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Keita Jones v. Ray Martinez, et al., (vid 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX

KEITA JONES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 1:23-cv-0013 v. ) ) RAY MARTINEZ, et al., ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER1 BEFORE THE COURT is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) by Magistrate Judge Ruth Miller, filed on February 13, 2024, recommending dismissal of the complaint. (ECF No. 10.) The Court conducted a de novo review of the record and has made an independent determination finding no error in the R&R.2 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 10, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court as if fully set forth herein; it is further ORDERED that the Complaint filed on March 21, 2023, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice; it is further ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be served on Keita Jones at his last known address provided to the Court by certified mail return receipt and that a copy of the return receipt be filed on the docket; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

Dated: March 10, 2026 /s/ Robert A. Molloy _________ ROBERT A. MOLLOY Chief Judge

1 Due to the retirement of the judge previously assigned to this case, the undersigned, exercising his authority as Chief Judge of the District Court, reassigned this case to himself on February 17, 2026. 2 See Hill v. Barnacle, 655 Fed. Appx. 142, 148 (3d Cir. 2016) (opining that the district court is not required to make separate findings or conclusions when reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation de novo under 28 U.SC. § 636(b)) (citing Elmendorf Grafica, Inc. v. D.S. America, Inc., 48 F.3d 46, 49-50 (1st Cir. 1995) (opining that “[28 U.S.C. § 636(b)] authorizes the district court to adopt in whole as well as in part the proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. Where, as here, the magistrate judge decided on an undisputed factual record, the district court was certainly not required to rehash the magistrate judge’s reasoning. The role of the magistrate judge is ‘to relieve courts of unnecessary work.’”) (citations omitted).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX

KEITA JONES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 1:23-cv-0013 v. ) ) RAY MARTINEZ, et al., ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER1 BEFORE THE COURT is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) by Magistrate Judge Ruth Miller, filed on February 13, 2024, recommending dismissal of the complaint. (ECF No. 10.) The Court conducted a de novo review of the record and has made an independent determination finding no error in the R&R.2 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 10, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court as if fully set forth herein; it is further ORDERED that the Complaint filed on March 21, 2023, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice; it is further ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be served on Keita Jones at his last known address provided to the Court by certified mail return receipt and that a copy of the return receipt be filed on the docket; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

Dated: March 10, 2026 /s/ Robert A. Molloy _________ ROBERT A. MOLLOY Chief Judge

1 Due to the retirement of the judge previously assigned to this case, the undersigned, exercising his authority as Chief Judge of the District Court, reassigned this case to himself on February 17, 2026. 2 See Hill v. Barnacle, 655 Fed. Appx. 142, 148 (3d Cir. 2016) (opining that the district court is not required to make separate findings or conclusions when reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation de novo under 28 U.SC. § 636(b)) (citing Elmendorf Grafica, Inc. v. D.S. America, Inc., 48 F.3d 46, 49-50 (1st Cir. 1995) (opining that “[28 U.S.C. § 636(b)] authorizes the district court to adopt in whole as well as in part the proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. Where, as here, the magistrate judge decided on an undisputed factual record, the district court was certainly not required to rehash the magistrate judge’s reasoning. The role of the magistrate judge is ‘to relieve courts of unnecessary work.’”) (citations omitted).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Keita Jones v. Ray Martinez, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keita-jones-v-ray-martinez-et-al-vid-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack