Staples v. Navarro

District Court, S.D. West Virginia

Staples v. Navarro

Trial Court Opinion

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

CHARLESTON DIVISION

DON JUAN STAPLES, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-cv-00526

JAKE NAVARRO, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Pending before the court are four motions: (1) Defendant Jake Navarro’s Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 34], (2) Plaintiff, Don Juan Staples, Jr.’s Motion for Entry of Default, [ECF No. 36], (3) Defendant Andrew McDavid’s Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 38], and (4) Defendant Steve Coyne’s Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 40]. Plaintiff filed a response to the dismissal motions on June 20, 2023, [ECF Nos. 44, 45], and Defendants timely replied, [ECF Nos. 48, 49]. This action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(B). On February 13, 2024, Magistrate Judge Tinsley submitted his Proposed Findings & Recommendations (“PF&R”), [ECF No. 55], and recommended that the court GRANT Defendants’ motions, DENY as moot Plaintiff’s motion, and DISMISS this action from the court’s docket. The parties had until March 1, 2024, to file written objections to the PF&R. No party timely filed objections or sought an extension of time to do so. 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.”

28 U.S.C. § 636

(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,

474 U.S. 140, 150

(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. The court, therefore, GRANTS Defendants’ respective Motions to Dismiss, [ECF Nos. 34, 38, 40], DENIES as moot Plaintiffs Motion for Entry of Default, [ECF No. 36], and DISMISSES this matter from the docket. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: March 7, 2024 G ow STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Reference

Status
Unknown