From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cook v. Rubenstein

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Martinsburg
Mar 12, 2009
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 3:07-CV-91 (BAILEY) (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 12, 2009)

Opinion

CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 3:07-CV-91 (BAILEY).

March 12, 2009


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS


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. By Standing Order, 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 January 30, 2009 [Doc. 73].

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). Here, objections to Magistrate Judge Seibert's R R were due within ten (10) days after being served with a copy of the R R pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The docket reflects that service was accepted on February 19, 2009. To date, neither party has filed objections. Accordingly, this Court will review the R R for clear error.

Having reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's R R, it is the opinion of this Court that the recommendations of Magistrate Judge Seibert [Doc. 73] should be, and are, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for reasons more fully stated in the report. As such, the defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 45] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; the Motion to Dismiss Travis Frye Complaint [Doc. 49] is DENIED AS MOOT; the Motion to Dismiss by Larry Williamson [Doc. 53] is GRANTED; the Motion for Joinder in Motion to Dismiss by Larry Williamson [Doc. 72] is GRANTED; the defendants' Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(2)(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Doc. 67] is GRANTED; and the plaintiff's complaint [Doc. 1] and amended complaint [Doc. 12] are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Accordingly, this action is ORDERED STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court.

It is so ORDERED.

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


Summaries of

Cook v. Rubenstein

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Martinsburg
Mar 12, 2009
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 3:07-CV-91 (BAILEY) (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 12, 2009)
Case details for

Cook v. Rubenstein

Case Details

Full title:JUSTIN COOK, Plaintiff, v. JIM RUBENSTEIN, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Mar 12, 2009

Citations

CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 3:07-CV-91 (BAILEY) (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 12, 2009)