Schneider v. American Water Works Company, Inc.

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

JOAN SCHNEIDER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-cv-00028 AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants.

ORDER Pending before the Court are three motions: (1) Motion to Set Aside and Void Entry of Clerk’s Entry of Default, (ECF No. 29), filed by Defendants American Water Works Company, Inc. and West Virginia American Water Company (collectively, “Defendants”); (2) Motion for Default Judgment, (ECF No. 33), filed by Plaintiffs Wayne Patterson and Joan Schneider (collectively, “Plaintiffs”); and (3) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside and Void Entry of Clerk’s Entry of Default, (ECF No. 42). By standing order entered on January 4, 2016, and filed in this case on January 21, 2025, (ECF No. 8), 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 filed a PF&R on August 26, 2025, recommending this Court grant Defendants’ motion and deny Plaintiffs’ motions. (ECF No. 50.)

This 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 PF&R to which no objections are addressed. Thomas vy. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and Plaintiffs 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 September 12, 2025. (ECF No.50.) To date, neither party has submitted any objection in response to the PF&R, thus constituting a waiver of de novo review and right to appeal this Court’s order.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R. (ECF No.50.) Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside Default and Void Entry of Clerk’s Entry of Default, (ECF No. 29), is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment, (ECF No. 33), and Motion to Strike Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside and Void Entry of Clerk’s Entry of Default, ECF No. 42), are DENIED.

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: September 16, 2025 GE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE