Maliki v. City of Parkersburg
Maliki v. City of Parkersburg
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
MAJED ABDULLAH MALIKI,
Plaintiff,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-cv-00520
CITY OF PARKERSBURG,
Defendant.
ORDER
Pending before the Court is the City of Parkersburg, Mayor Tom Joyce, Chief of Police Joseph Martin, Officer Joshua Thrasher (“Thrasher”), Sargent Powers, Officer Miller, and John Doe Officers #2 and #5’s (collectively “Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgement. (ECF No. 35.) By standing order entered on January 4, 2016, and filed in this case on July 15, 2019, (ECF No. 2), this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Tinsley entered his PF&R on April 13, 2021, recommending this Court grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 38.) This Court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, factual or legal conclusions contained within the PF&R to which no objections were addressed. Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 150(1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and Plaintiff’s right to appeal this Court’s order.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour, 889
1 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 April 30, 2021. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 38). Further, the PF&R states that Plaintiff's equal protection claim against Thrasher is the only claim that remains, and it recommends that this Court grant summary judgment for Thrasher on this clam. (ECF No. 38 at 1.) Thus, no claims remain. Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this matter from the Court’s docket. IT ISSO ORDERED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: May 4, 2021
&
Reference
- Status
- Unknown