Opinion
Civil Action No. 2:16cv20 Civil Action No. 1:16cv95
10-06-2017
PIERRE LAHENS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, and TERRY O'BRIEN, J. GILLEY, SIX UNKNOWN NAMED OFFICERS OF USP HAZELTON SPECIAL TASK FORCE, Consolidated Defendants.
( ) 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 E. Seibert [Docs. 59 (2:16-cv-20) and 17 (1:16-cv-95)]. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, 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 September 11, 2017, wherein he recommends this Court grant the defendants' motion to dismiss the FTCA and Bivens Complaints.
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 Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The docket reflects that service was accepted on September 18, 2017 [Docs. 61 and 18]. 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 [Docs. 59 and 17] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment [Doc. 45] is GRANTED. Accordingly, the plaintiff's FTCA Complaint [Doc. 1] is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Additionally, the plaintiff's Bivens action, Case No. 1:16-cv-95, consolidated with this FTCA action, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Finally, the pending Motion to Amend Defendants' Names [Doc. 49] is DENIED AS MOOT. This Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the defendants and to STRIKE these cases 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.
DATED: October 6, 2017.
/s/ _________
JOHN PRESTON BAILEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE