From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Boston v. Bennett

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA ELKINS
Jan 18, 2019
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-15 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 18, 2019)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-15

01-18-2019

IVAN BOSTON, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM BENNETT, D.D.S.; THOMAS KANE, Director of B.O.P; MICHAEL WEAVER, Health Service Administrator; TIFFANY SMITH, Chief Dentist; REBECCA GROVE, Assistant Health Service Administrator, Defendants.


(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. 55]. 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 December 26, 2018, wherein he recommends plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. 1] be dismissed with prejudice against defendants Rebecca Grove, Thomas Kane, Michael Weaver, and William Bennett; plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed without prejudice against Tiffany Smith; and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 29] be granted.

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 December 31, 2018 [Doc. 56]. 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. 55] 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 WITH PREJUDICE as to Defendants Rebecca Grove, Thomas Kane, Michael Weaver, and William Bennett. Further, this Court ORDERS that plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. 1] be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Defendant Tiffany Smith. 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 defendants.

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: January 18, 2019.

/s/_________

JOHN PRESTON BAILEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Boston v. Bennett

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA ELKINS
Jan 18, 2019
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-15 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 18, 2019)
Case details for

Boston v. Bennett

Case Details

Full title:IVAN BOSTON, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM BENNETT, D.D.S.; THOMAS KANE, Director…

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

Date published: Jan 18, 2019

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-15 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 18, 2019)