Clark-Armstead v. State of West Virginia Elected Officials

District Court, S.D. West Virginia

Clark-Armstead v. State of West Virginia Elected Officials

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

CHARLESTON DIVISION

BRENDA CECELIA CLARK-ARMSTEAD,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-cv-00380

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA ELECTED OFFICIALS,

Defendant.

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Petition for Modification. (ECF No. 1.) By Standing Order entered on January 4, 2016, and filed in this case on March 1, 2018, 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. 2.) Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on October 29, 2019, recommending that this Court dismiss this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (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 November 12, 2019. (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 Plaintiff's right to appeal this Court’s order. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 6), DISMISSES Plaintiff's Petition for failure to prosecute, (ECF No. 1), and DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE 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: November 22, 2019

&

Reference

Status
Unknown