From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Michel v. Bharara

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION
Mar 22, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-cv-14443 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 22, 2017)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-cv-14443

03-22-2017

GARRY MICHEL, Plaintiff, v. PREETINDER BHARARA, et al., Defendants.


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On April 11, 2014, the Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed his Complaint (Document 1) in this matter. Subsequently, on May 1, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 5).

By Standing Order (Document 2) entered on April 11, 2014, this matter was referred to the Honorable R. Clarke VanDervort, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission to this Court of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Subsequently, by Order (Document 6) entered on January 6, 2016, the case was referred to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition.

On February 28, 2017, Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 7) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny the Plaintiff's Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint, and remove this matter from the Court's docket.

Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by March 17, 2017, and none were filed by either party. 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). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and a party's right to appeal this Court's Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984).

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS that the Plaintiff's Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 5) be DENIED, the Plaintiff's Complaint (Document 1) be DISMISSED, and this matter be REMOVED from the Court's docket.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to any unrepresented party.

ENTER: March 22, 2017

/s/_________

IRENE C. BERGER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA


Summaries of

Michel v. Bharara

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION
Mar 22, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-cv-14443 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 22, 2017)
Case details for

Michel v. Bharara

Case Details

Full title:GARRY MICHEL, Plaintiff, v. PREETINDER BHARARA, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION

Date published: Mar 22, 2017

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-cv-14443 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 22, 2017)