Lott v. Drain

Docket 2:25-cv-00413

Filed
2025-07-03
Terminated
Not recorded
Case type
cv

Outcome

other judgment · defendant

FJC civil IDB DISTRICT=25 OFFICE=2 DOCKET=2500413 FILEDATE=07/03/2025 DISP=17, PROCPROG=2, JUDGMENT=2; codebook: https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/idb/codebooks/Civil%20Codebook%201988%20Forward%2010252023.pdf

Outcome source

Parties and representation

      Party and firm records are not available for this case.

      Panel

        No sourced panel votes are recorded.

        Opinions and documents

        IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION JOHNATHAN LOTT, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-cv-00413 BRITTANY DRAIN, et al, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On July 3, 2025, the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1), a Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Document 2), and an Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief (Document 3). By Administrative Order (Document 4) entered on July 7, 2025, the matter was referred to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, 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. On July 15, 2025, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 5) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny the Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1), dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint, and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. Additionally, by separate Order (Document 6) entered on July 15, 2025, the Magistrate Judge ordered that the Plaintiff’s 1 Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief (Document 3) be denied as moot. Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by August 1, 2025. Neither party has timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation. 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). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and a party’s right to appeal this Court’s Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS that the Plaintiff's Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1) be DENIED, the Plaintiff's Complaint be DISMISSED, and this matter be REMOVED from the Court’s docket. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: August 12, 2025 Dire. Benger’ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

        Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.