From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

VANCE v. CENTRAL REGIONAL JAI

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Martinsburg
Aug 11, 2009
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09-CV-40 (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 11, 2009)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09-CV-40.

August 11, 2009


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of the Opinion/Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge John S. Kaull. By Standing Order this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Kaull for submission of a proposed report and a recommendation ("R R"). Magistrate Judge Kaull filed his R R on July 16, 2009 [Doc. 15].

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 Kaull's R R were due within ten (10) 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 July 18, 2009. 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 Opinion/Report and Recommendation [Doc. 15] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claims against the Central Regional Jail are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim and the plaintiff's claims against Officer Segiman shall PROCEED, and Officer Segiman shall be SERVED with a copy of a twenty (20) day summons and the Complaint through the United States Marshal Service.

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 petitioner.

Exhibit


Summaries of

VANCE v. CENTRAL REGIONAL JAI

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Martinsburg
Aug 11, 2009
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09-CV-40 (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 11, 2009)
Case details for

VANCE v. CENTRAL REGIONAL JAI

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH ALLEN VANCE, JR., Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL REGIONAL JAIL AND C/O…

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

Date published: Aug 11, 2009

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09-CV-40 (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 11, 2009)