Blackmon v. State of West Virginia
Blackmon v. State of West Virginia
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
VINCENT BLACKMON,
Plaintiff,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-02388
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Complaint, (ECF No. 2), and Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, (ECF No. 1). By Standing Order entered on January 4, 2016, and filed in this case on March 14, 2016, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition (“PF&R”). (ECF No. 4.) Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on June 25, 2018, recommending that this Court find that Plaintiff’s Complaint, (ECF No. 2), fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, deny Plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs, (ECF No. 1), and dismiss this civil action pursuant to the provisions of
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A, (ECF No. 10). (ECF No. 6.) 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 the Plaintiff’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). In addition, this Court need not conduct a de novo review when a party “makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the Court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson,
687 F.2d 44, 47(4th Cir. 1982). Objections to the PF&R in this case were due on July 12, 2018. (ECF No. 6.) To date, Plaintiff has failed to submit any objections in response to the PF&R, thus constituting a waiver of de novo review and Plaintiffs right to appeal this Court’s order. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 6), DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim, (ECF No. 2), DENIES Plaintiff's Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, (ECF No. 1), and DISMISSES this action from the docket of the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: July 19, 2018
Reference
- Status
- Unknown