From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lyle v. Beckley

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Beckley Division
Nov 3, 2009
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:07-cv-00475 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 3, 2009)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:07-cv-00475.

November 3, 2009


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER


James M. Lyle, pro se, (Plaintiff) brought this action seeking relief under a "1983/Bivens" suit [Docket 1]. On August 2, 2007, this Court referred Plaintiff's complaint to Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for proposed findings of fact and a recommendation (PF R) (Docket 2). Plaintiff was informed that his lawsuit was not in the correct form (Docket 3), and he was provided with the necessary paperwork to prepare a proper complaint (Docket 8). Plaintiff failed to re-file his complaint, despite being advised by Magistrate Judge VanDervort that failure to submit the provided documents would result in a recommendation of "dismissal of this matter without prejudice" (Docket 9).

On October 1, 2009, Magistrate Judge VanDervort issued a PF R recommending the dismissal of Plaintiff's application without prejudice for failure to prosecute (Docket 10). The PF R also indicated, in a footnote, that Plaintiff was released from custody on September 30, 2008.

This 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. 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 VanDervort's PF R were due on October 16, 2009, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). To date, no objections have been filed.

Accordingly, the Court hereby (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge VanDervort's PF R in its entirety [Docket 10], (2) DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint [Docket 1] without prejudice, and (3) DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this action from the Court's active docket. A separate judgment order will enter this day, implementing the rulings contained herein.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

This Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to provide a copy of this Order to Plaintiff, pro se, and Magistrate Judge VanDervort.


Summaries of

Lyle v. Beckley

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Beckley Division
Nov 3, 2009
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:07-cv-00475 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 3, 2009)
Case details for

Lyle v. Beckley

Case Details

Full title:JAMES M. LYLE, Plaintiff, v. FCI BECKLEY, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Beckley Division

Date published: Nov 3, 2009

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:07-cv-00475 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 3, 2009)