From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McLaurin v. Rubenstein

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Mar 21, 2012
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-cv-00090 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 21, 2012)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-cv-00090

03-21-2012

JOHN F. MCLAURIN, Plaintiff, v. JIM RUBENSTEIN, et al., Defendants


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This action was referred to the Honorable Mary E. Stanley, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission to this court of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The Magistrate Judge has submitted findings of fact and has recommended that the court GRANT the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Docket 26] and DISMISS the action with prejudice. The plaintiff filed a Request for Enlargement of Time to File his Objections to the Magistrate Proposed Finding and Recommendation [Docket 38]. The court granted the plaintiff's request and directed the plaintiff to file his objections by March 16, 2012. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a second Request for Enlargement of Seven Days to File his Objections to the Magistrate Proposed Findings and Recommendations [Docket 40]. Because the court FINDS that the plaintiff has had adequate time to file his objections, I DENY the plaintiff's Request for Enlargement of Seven Days to File his Objections to the Magistrate Proposed Findings and Recommendations.

A district court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This court is not, however, 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).

As the plaintiff has not filed objections in this case, the court adopts and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and orders judgment consistent therewith. The court GRANTS the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and DISMISSES the action with prejudice.

The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.

________________________

Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief Judge


Summaries of

McLaurin v. Rubenstein

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Mar 21, 2012
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-cv-00090 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 21, 2012)
Case details for

McLaurin v. Rubenstein

Case Details

Full title:JOHN F. MCLAURIN, Plaintiff, v. JIM RUBENSTEIN, et al., Defendants

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION

Date published: Mar 21, 2012

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-cv-00090 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 21, 2012)

Citing Cases

Miller v. Rubenstein

False imprisonment is the "illegal detention of a person without lawful process or by an unlawful execution…

Johnson v. Duty

Courts have noted that similar allegations do not adequately set forth a state-law claim for false…