Golosow v. Rubenstein

Full title: ALEX VINCENT GOLOSOW, Plaintiff, v. JIM RUBENSTEIN, Commissioner, D.O.C.…

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

Date published: Jul 20, 2011

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10-CV-88 (BAILEY) (N.D.W. Va. Jul. 20, 2011)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10-CV-88 (BAILEY).

July 20, 2011

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JOHN BAILEY, District Judge

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 Local Rule, 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 June 27, 2011 [Doc. 41]. In that filing, the magistrate judge recommended that this Court dismiss the plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. 1].

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 Seibert's R R were due within fourteen (14) days of receipt, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The docket reflects that service was accepted on June 28, 2011. See Doc. 42. To date, no objections have been filed. 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 [Doc. 41] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. As such, this Court hereby DENIES and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. 1]. Therefore, this matter is hereby ORDERED STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court.

It is so ORDERED.

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

Exhibit