IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA MARTINSBURG SUSANNAH KARATZIAS, Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:20-CV-132 (GROH) KRISTINA NEUMILLER, Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Now before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble. Pursuant to

(e)(2)(B), this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Trumble for submission of a proposed R&R. Magistrate Judge Trumble issued his R&R [ECF No. 7] on September 10, 2020. Therein, Magistrate Judge Trumble recommends that the Plaintiff’s Complaint [ECF No. 1] be dismissed without prejudice because this Court is not an appropriate venue for this civil action. Pursuant to

(b)(1)(C), this Court must conduct a de novo review of the magistrate judge’s findings where 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 to which no objection is made. Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and of a party’s right to appeal this Court’s Order. 28.U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Snyder v. Ridenour,

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

(4th Cir. Objections to Magistrate Judge Trumble’s R&R were due within fourteen plus three days of service.

(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The R&R was mailed to the Plaintiff by certified mail on September 10, 2020.1 ECF No. 7. Accordingly, this Court reviews the R&R for clear error. Upon careful review and thoughtful consideration, it is the opinion of this Court that Magistrate Judge Trumble’s R&R [ECF No. 7] should be, and is hereby, ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated therein. Therefore, the Plaintiff's Complaint [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Plaintiff's [ECF No. 4] Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED AS MOOT. This matter is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Court's active docket. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to retain a copy of this Order in the event the pro se Plaintiff contacts the Clerk’s office about this matter in the future. DATED: October 6, 2020

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 The R&R was returned to the Clerk’s Office undeliverable and marked “Vacant/Unable to Forward.” ECF No. 10. Accordingly, the Court construes the Plaintiff's failure to maintain a valid address with the Clerk’s Office as abandoning this civil action and a failure to prosecute, which serves as a separate and independent basis for dismissal.