IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA WHEELING MICHAEL DANIEL BOWMAN, Plaintiff, Vv. Criminal Action No. 5:19-CV-255 (BAILEY) MARSHALL COUNTY COMMISSION; JOSEPH R. CANESTRARO, Assistant Prosecuting Attomey, Marshall County Prosecutor's Office; RHONDA WADE, Prosecuting Attorney, Marshall County Prosecutor's Office, 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 P. Mazzone [Doc. 7]. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Mazzone for submission of a proposed report and recommendation ("R&R"). Magistrate Judge Mazzone filed his R&R on September 25, 2019, wherein he recommends plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. 1] be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to

(e)(2)(B) and that plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 2] be denied as moot. 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,

(1985). !n 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 Mazzone’s R&R were due no later than October 12, 2019. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for clear error. Upon careful review of the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 7] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge’s report. Accordingly, the plaintiffs Complaint [Doc, 1] is DISMISSED and the plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 2] is DENIED AS MOOT. Additionally, the plaintiffs Motion of Joinder [Doc. 8] is hereby DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record herein and to mail a copy to the pro se plaintiff. DATED: October ib 2019.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE