From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. Tipton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA MARTINSBURG
Apr 21, 2014
CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:14-CV-16 (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 21, 2014)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:14-CV-16

04-21-2014

BRIAN L. BROWN, Plaintiff, v. TIPTON, Unit Manager 6B Unit, BOYD, 6B Counselor, and U.S. ATTORNEY, Defendants.


(JUDGE GROH)


ORDER ADOPTING OPINION/REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert. 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 March 25, 2014 [Doc. 9]. In that filing, the magistrate judge recommended that this Court dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint [Doc. 1] without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the Prison Litigation Reform Act's "three strikes" provision.

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 petitioner's 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). Objections to Magistrate Judge Seibert's R & R were due within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the same, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). The docket reflects that service was accepted on March 31, 2014 [Doc. 10]. No party has filed objections to the R & R. Accordingly, this Court will review the report and recommendation for clear error.

Upon careful review of the report and recommendation, it is the opinion of this Court that the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. Accordingly, the Court hereby DISMISSES the Plaintiff's Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Accordingly, this matter is hereby ORDERED STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment for the Defendants.

It is so ORDERED.

The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record and pro se parties.

__________

GINA M. GROH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Brown v. Tipton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA MARTINSBURG
Apr 21, 2014
CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:14-CV-16 (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 21, 2014)
Case details for

Brown v. Tipton

Case Details

Full title:BRIAN L. BROWN, Plaintiff, v. TIPTON, Unit Manager 6B Unit, BOYD, 6B…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA MARTINSBURG

Date published: Apr 21, 2014

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:14-CV-16 (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 21, 2014)

Citing Cases

Sayre v. King

" Johnson v. Warner, 200 F. App'x 270, 272 (4th Cir. 2006); see also Vandiver v. Prison Health Servs., Inc.,…