From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Benjamin v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA ELKINS
Nov 27, 2018
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-CV-26 (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 27, 2018)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-CV-26

11-27-2018

NEAL BENJAMIN, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.


(BAILEY)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On this day, the above-styled matter came before this Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge James P. Mazzone [Doc. 11]. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Mazzone for submission of a proposed report and recommendation ("R&R"). Magistrate Judge Mazzone filed his R&R on October 29, 2018, wherein he recommends plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. 1] be dismissed without prejudice. Further, he recommends plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 2] and Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 9] be denied as moot. Finally, Magistrate Judge Mazzone also recommends plaintiff's Motion Requesting Additions to be Added to Federal Tort Claim [Doc. 7] be denied.

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). The docket reflects that service was accepted on November 5, 2018 [Doc. 12]. 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. 11] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. Accordingly, this Court ORDERS that the plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. 1] be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Further, plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 2] and plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 9] are DENIED AS MOOT. Finally, plaintiff's Motion Requesting Additions to be Added to Federal Tort Claim [Doc. 7] is DENIED. 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 respondent.

It is so ORDERED.

The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to any counsel of record herein and to mail a copy to the pro se petitioner.

DATED: November 27, 2018.

/s/ _________

JOHN PRESTON BAILEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Benjamin v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA ELKINS
Nov 27, 2018
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-CV-26 (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 27, 2018)
Case details for

Benjamin v. United States

Case Details

Full title:NEAL BENJAMIN, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

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

Date published: Nov 27, 2018

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-CV-26 (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 27, 2018)