From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bonds v. Fox

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
Jun 23, 2008
Civil Action No. 1:08CV78 (N.D.W. Va. Jun. 23, 2008)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 1:08CV78.

June 23, 2008


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


On February 13, 2008, pro se plaintiff John Bonds ("Bonds") filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court referred this matter to United States Magistrate Judge John S. Kaull for initial screening and a report and recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and Local Rule of Prisoner Litigation 83.02. Bonds also filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which the Magistrate Judge granted on February 19, 2008. On May 23, 2008, Magistrate Judge Kaull issued a Report and Recommendation recommending the following:

• Bonds' claims against defendants Fox and Rubenstein be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e).
• Bonds' claims against Dr. Williamson proceed, and that Dr. Williamson be served with a copy of the summons and complaint through the United States Marshal Service.

The Report and Recommendation also specifically warned Bonds that failure to object to the recommendation would result in the waiver of his appellate rights on this issue. Nevertheless, no objections have been filed. Bonds did file a motion for appointment of counsel on June 11, 2008, which the Magistrate Judge denied on June 17, 2008.

Bonds' failure to object to the Report and Recommendation not only waives his appellate rights in this matter, but also relieves the Court of any obligation to conduct a de novo review of the issues presented. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-153 (1985); Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1997).

Consequently, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (dkt. no. 8) in its entirety and ORDERS the following:

• Bonds' claims against defendants Fox and Rubenstein be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e).
• Bonds' claims against Dr. Williamson proceed, and that Dr. Williamson be SERVED with a copy of the summons and complaint through the United States Marshal Service.

It is so ORDERED.

The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se plaintiff, return receipt requested, and to transmit a copy of the Order to the United States Marshal Service.


Summaries of

Bonds v. Fox

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
Jun 23, 2008
Civil Action No. 1:08CV78 (N.D.W. Va. Jun. 23, 2008)
Case details for

Bonds v. Fox

Case Details

Full title:JOHN BONDS, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN WILLIAM FOX, DR. LARRY WILLIAMSON…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia

Date published: Jun 23, 2008

Citations

Civil Action No. 1:08CV78 (N.D.W. Va. Jun. 23, 2008)

Citing Cases

Harper v. Lappin

Mem. Opp'n Mot. Dismiss 7-8. "However, participation in the administrative remedy proceedings is not the type…

Barefoot v. Derry

"However, participation in the administrative remedy procedure is not the type of personal involvement…