Parker v. Pearsal

N.D. West Virginia

Parker v. Pearsal

DecidedJanuary 5, 2021

Docket5:19-cv-00303

StatusUnknown

This text of Parker v. Pearsal (Parker v. Pearsal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. West Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Parker v. Pearsal, (N.D.W. Va. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA Wheeling ROBERT D. PARKER, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 5:19-CV-303 Judge Bailey RN HILEMAN, Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING R&R On December 17, 2020, this Court ordered that the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") be served at plaintiffs updated address via Federal Express [Doc. 40]. According to the Federal Express website, the R&R was delivered December 18, 2020. The R&R specified that objections to were due within fourteen days. To date, plaintiff has not filed objections to the R&R. 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 to Magistrate Judge

Mazzone's R&R were due within fourteen (14) days of service, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). To date, 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. 38] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge’s report. Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss, or Alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 29] is hereby GRANTED and the plaintiffs Bivens Complaint (Doc. 1] is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This Court further ORDERS that this matter be STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of defendant. It is so ORDERED. DATED: January 5, 2021.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA Wheeling ROBERT D. PARKER, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 5:19-CV-303 Judge Bailey RN HILEMAN, Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING R&R On December 17, 2020, this Court ordered that the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") be served at plaintiffs updated address via Federal Express [Doc. 40]. According to the Federal Express website, the R&R was delivered December 18, 2020. The R&R specified that objections to were due within fourteen days. To date, plaintiff has not filed objections to the R&R. 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 to Magistrate Judge

Mazzone's R&R were due within fourteen (14) days of service, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). To date, 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. 38] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge’s report. Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss, or Alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 29] is hereby GRANTED and the plaintiffs Bivens Complaint (Doc. 1] is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This Court further ORDERS that this matter be STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of defendant. It is so ORDERED. DATED: January 5, 2021.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Parker v. Pearsal, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parker-v-pearsal-wvnd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack