Case Information
*1 Case 1:22-cv-00498 Document 6 Filed 03/05/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 29 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD
LACOSTA STEELE,
Plaintiff,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:22-00498
SAMMY BREWSTER,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn for submission of findings and
recommendations regarding disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. §
636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn submitted to the court his
Proposed Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) on October 31, 2022,
in which he recommended that the district court deny plaintiff’s Motion
to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, dismiss plaintiff’s
complaint, and remove this matter from the court’s docket.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b), the parties were allotted fourteen days, plus three mailing days, in which
to file any objections to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn’s Findings and
Recommendation. The failure of any party to file such objections
constitutes a waiver of such party's right to a de novo review by this
court. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989).
*2 Case 1:22-cv-00498 Document 6 Filed 03/05/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 30 David A. Faber Senior The parties failed to file any objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation within the required time period. [1]
Having reviewed the Findings and Recommendation filed by Magistrate
Judge Aboulhosn, the court adopts the findings and recommendations
contained therein. Accordingly, the court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s
Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, DISMISSES
plaintiff’s complaint, and directs the Clerk to remove this case from
the court’s active docket.
The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to plaintiff and any other unrepresented parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of March, 2024.
ENTER:
1 Plaintiff did file a complaint on a form provided by the Clerk’s
Office. However, as noted in the PF&R, this court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim and that lack of
jurisdiction could not be remedied by amendment.
2