Knotts v. WVU Medicine

District Court, S.D. West Virginia

Knotts v. WVU Medicine

Trial Court Opinion

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

CHARLESTON DIVISION

ZACHARY KNOTTS,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-cv-00716

WVU MEDICINE, et al.,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is plaintiff Zachary Knotts’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint, (ECF No. 1), and his application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 3.) By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). (ECF No. 2.) Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on March 11, 2025, (ECF No. 5), recommending that this Court dismiss the complaint for failing to meet the screening requirements of

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(e)(2)(B), dismiss the application to proceed in forma pauperis as moot, and to remove the case from the Court’s active docket. (ECF No. 5 at 5–6.) The Court is not 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). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Petitioner’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 yv. Johnson,

687 F.2d 44, 47

(4th Cir. 1982). Objections to the PF&R were due on March 28, 2025. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R (ECF No. 5), DISMISSES the complaint for failure to meet the screening requirements of

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(e)(2)(B), (ECF No. 1), DENIES AS MOOT the application to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 3), and DISMISSES this action from the Court’s docket. 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: April 17, 2025

be // aig Ye Ht Le JOHNSTON t—~™ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Reference

Status
Unknown