IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA ELKINS SCOTT MATTHEW PIERCE, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-CV-33 (BAILEY) FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants. 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. 10]. 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 5, 2018, wherein he recommends this Court dismiss the plaintiff’s Federal Tort Claims Act Complaint with prejudice because it is barred by the statute of limitations.

Pursuant to

(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,

, 1 150 (1985). In addition, failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the right to appeal this Court's Order.

(b)(1); Snyder v. Ridenour,

(4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce,

(4th Cir. 1984). Here, objections to Magistrate Judge Seibert’s R&R were due within

fourteen (14) days of receipt, pursuant to

(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The docket indicates the plaintiff accepted service on June 11, 2018 [Doc. 11]. To date, plaintiff has not filed any objections. Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for clear error. Conclusion

Upon careful review of the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 10] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge’s report. Accordingly, this Court ORDERS that the FTCA Complaint [Doc. 1] be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Additionally, the plaintiff’s Motions to Proceed in forma pauperis [Docs. 2 & 7] are DENIED AS MOOT. This Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the defendants 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.

2 DATED: July 2, 2018.

JOHN PRESTON BAILEY UNI TES DISTRICT JU