From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Blanchard v. U.S.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA ELKINS
Jul 7, 2015
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-58 (N.D.W. Va. Jul. 7, 2015)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-58

07-07-2015

RAY BLANCHARD, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.


(BAILEY)

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 [Doc. 51]. 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 June 16, 2015, wherein he recommends this Court dismiss the plaintiff's Complaint as frivolous.

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 June 19, 2015 [Doc. 52]. No objections have been filed, and the time within which to do so has expired. Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for clear error.

Therefore, upon careful review of the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 51] 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. 41] is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, this Court ORDERS that the Complaint [Doc. 1] be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AS FRIVOLOUS pursuant to 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Additionally, the following pending motions [Docs. 23, 24, 35 and 40] are DENIED AS MOOT. This Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the defendant and to STRIKE this case 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: July 7, 2015.

/s/ _________

JOHN PRESTON BAILEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Blanchard v. U.S.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA ELKINS
Jul 7, 2015
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-58 (N.D.W. Va. Jul. 7, 2015)
Case details for

Blanchard v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:RAY BLANCHARD, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA ELKINS

Date published: Jul 7, 2015

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-58 (N.D.W. Va. Jul. 7, 2015)

Citing Cases

Sims v. United States

FDIC v. Myer, 510 U.S. 471,477-79 (noting that a constitutional tort claim is not cognizable in an FTCA…

McFarland v. United States

A constitutional civil rights claim is not cognizable in an FTCA lawsuit. FDIC v. Myer, 510 U.S. 471, 477-79…