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

CHARLESTON DIVISION

TIMOTHY CLARK STAFFORD, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-cv-00400

WEST VIRGINIA STATE POLICE, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

This action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley on May 23, 2019, for submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition pursuant to

(b)(1)(B). [ECF No. 3]. On April 27, 2022, Magistrate Judge Tinsley submitted his Proposed Findings & Recommendations (“PF&R”) [ECF No. 9] and recommended that I dismiss Ruth Loretta Stafford as a Plaintiff from this action without prejudice. Objections to Magistrate Judge Tinsley’s PF&R were due no later than May 16, 2022.1 Neither party timely filed objections to the PF&R nor sought an extension of time. A district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”

1 The docket reflects that the PF&R mailed to Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable on May 19, 2022, but this does not excuse the failure to file objections by the deadline. “A pro se party must advise the clerk promptly of any changes in name, address, and telephone number.” L.R. Civ. P. 83.5.

(b)(1)(C). This court is not, however, 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). Because the parties have not filed objections in this case, the court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the PF&R and orders judgment consistent therewith. It is ORDERED that Ruth Loretta Stafford is DISMISSED as a Plaintiff from this action without prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.

ENTER} May 24, 2022 Ci ee STATES DISTRICT JUDGE