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

CHARLESTON DIVISION

CLAUDIA ANN CARTER GOFF,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-cv-00115

UNITED STATES POSTAL MAILHANDLERS,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is plaintiff Claudia Ann Carter Goff’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint, (ECF No. 2), and her application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1.) 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. 3.) Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on March 20, 2025, (ECF No. 6), recommending that the Court dismiss this civil action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for failure to prosecute or otherwise comply with court orders. (ECF No. 6 at 7 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3), 41(b)).) Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommends denying Plaintiff’s application to proceed in form pauperis as moot. (Id.) 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,

(1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Petitioner’s right to appeal this Court’s Order.

(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour,

(4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce,

(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 vy. Johnson,

(4th Cir. 1982). Objections to the PF&R were due on April 7, 2025. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R (ECF No. 6), DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, (ECF No. 2), DENIES AS MOOT the application to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 1), 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 18, 2025

BAH MA tO THOMAS E. JOHNSTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

' Consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), because the Court dismisses this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it shall not operate as an adjudication on the merits. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Link v. Wabash R. Co.,

(1962) (construing Rule 41(b) as permitting the district court to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute).