Jones v. Martinez, et al
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX KEITA JONES, Plaintiff, v. RAY MARTINEZ, et al., Defendant. ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:23-cv-0013 ) ) ) ) ) ORDER1 BEFORE THE COURT is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) by Magistrate Judge Ruth Miller, filed on February 13, 2024, recommending dismissal of the complaint. (ECF No. 10.) The Court conducted a de novo review of the record and has made an independent determination finding no error in the R&R.2 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 10, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court as if fully set forth herein; it is further ORDERED that the Complaint filed on March 21, 2023, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice; it is further ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be served on Keita Jones at his last known address provided to the Court by certified mail return receipt and that a copy of the return receipt be filed on the docket; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. Dated: March 10, 2026 /s/ Robert A. …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-1_23-cv-00013/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_23-cv-00013-1.pdf
SHA-256 f4f7aa6579dbf2142fa1b5a195eab03f20c35e6420a57b2b4027d1f7633236aa
Re-using this document
two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-f4f7aa6579db
Document text
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX KEITA JONES, Plaintiff, v. RAY MARTINEZ, et al., Defendant. ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:23-cv-0013 ) ) ) ) ) ORDER1 BEFORE THE COURT is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) by Magistrate Judge Ruth Miller, filed on February 13, 2024, recommending dismissal of the complaint. (ECF No. 10.) The Court conducted a de novo review of the record and has made an independent determination finding no error in the R&R.2 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 10, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court as if fully set forth herein; it is further ORDERED that the Complaint filed on March 21, 2023, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice; it is further ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be served on Keita Jones at his last known address provided to the Court by certified mail return receipt and that a copy of the return receipt be filed on the docket; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. Dated: March 10, 2026 /s/ Robert A. Molloy _________ ROBERT A. MOLLOY Chief Judge 1 Due to the retirement of the judge previously assigned to this case, the undersigned, exercising his authority as Chief Judge of the District Court, reassigned this case to himself on February 17, 2026. 2 See Hill v. Barnacle, 655 Fed. Appx. 142, 148 (3d Cir. 2016) (opining that the district court is not required to make separate findings or conclusions when reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation de novo under 28 U.SC. § 636(b)) (citing Elmendorf Grafica, Inc. v. D.S. America, Inc., 48 F.3d 46, 49-50 (1st Cir. 1995) (opining that “[28 U.S.C. § 636(b)] authorizes the district court to adopt in whole as well as in part the proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. Where, as here, the magistrate judge decided on an undisputed factual record, the district court was certainly not required to rehash the magistrate judge’s reasoning. The role of the magistrate judge is ‘to relieve courts of unnecessary work.’”) (citations omitted). Case: 1:23-cv-00013-RAM-GAT Document #: 31 Filed: 03/10/26 Page 1 of 1