Ross Matthew Cataffo v. Christopher Lavine, et al.

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

ROSS MATTHEW CATAFFO, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-cv-00532 CHRISTOPHER LAVINE, et al., Defendants.

ORDER By standing order entered on September 1, 2024, and filed in this case on September 4, 2025, (ECF No. 3), 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 his PF&R on October 14, 2025, recommending this Court dismiss this action for failure to prosecute because Plaintiff Ross Matthew Cataffo, (“Plaintiff”) has failed to file an Amended Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (“Application”) or an Amended Complaint, as required by the Magistrate Judge’s Order and Notice. (ECF No. 5.)

This Order and Notice, (ECF No. 4), required Plaintiff to file his Amended Application and Complaint by October 5, 2025, and further notified Plaintiff that failure to comply would result in the Magistrate Judge submitting a recommendation that this matter be dismissed.

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 October 31, 2025. (ECF No. 5.) To date, Plaintiff has failed to submit any objection in response to the PF&R, thus constituting a waiver of de novo review and Plaintiffs right to appeal this Court’s order.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 5), and DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this matter 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: November 7, 2025 GE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE