Norwood v. Jividen

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

TRAVIS R. NORWOOD, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00299 2:20-cv-00350 BETSY JIVIDEN, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion of Entry of Default Judgment, (ECF No. 43), and Motion for Entry of Default, (ECF No. 44). By standing order entered on January 4, 2016, and filed in this case on May 21, 2020, (ECF No. 5), 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 November 8, 2022, recommending this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motions for Entry of Default and Default Judgment. (ECF No. 66.)

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 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 25, 2022. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 66), and DENIES Plaintiff's Motions for Entry of Default and Default Judgment. This matter remains referred to Magistrate Judge Tinsley.

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: December 5, 2022 &