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-00525

MURPHYS WATER WELL BITS, et al.,

Defendants.

PROPOSED FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION

This matter is assigned to the Honorable Thomas E. Johnston, United States District Judge, and by standing order entered on September 1, 2024, and filed in this case on September 3, 2025, this matter is referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for submission of proposed findings and recommendations for disposition pursuant to

(b)(1)(B). (ECF No. 3.) On September 4, 2025, the undersigned entered an Order and Notice (ECF No. 4) notifying Plaintiff that his Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (ECF No. 1) and Complaint (ECF No. 2) are deficient and granting Plaintiff leave to amend his Application and Complaint by no later than October 5, 2025. Plaintiff was advised that his failure to amend by that deadline or otherwise comply with the Court’s Order would result in the undersigned recommending that the case be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. (Id.). Plaintiff failed to file an amended Application and Complaint by the deadline or otherwise move for an extension.1 Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that the presiding District Judge DISMISS this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.

The parties are notified that this Proposed Findings and Recommendation is hereby FILED, and a copy will be submitted to the Honorable Thomas E. Johnston, United States District Judge. Pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of the filing of this Proposed Findings and Recommendation to file with the Clerk of this Court specific written objections identifying the portions of the Proposed Findings and Recommendation to which objection is made and the basis of such objection. Extension of this time period may be granted by the presiding District Judge for good cause shown. Copies of any objections shall be provided to the opposing party or, if it is represented by counsel, to its counsel, and to Judge Johnston. Failure to file written objections as set forth above shall constitute a waiver of de

novo review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); Snyder v. Ridenour,

, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); Wright v. Collins,

(4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce,

(4th Cir. 1984).

1 On September 18, 2025, Plaintiff moved for appointment of counsel, which the Court denied on September 19, 2025. (ECF Nos. 5, 6). In its Order, the Court specified that the deadlines for amending Plaintiff’s Application and Complaint remained in full force and effect. (ECF No. 6 at 3). 2 The Clerk is DIRECTED to file this Proposed Findings and Recommendation and to mail a copy of the same to Plaintiff and to transmit a copy to counsel of record. ENTERED: October 14, 2025

f VV YAW = Dwane L. Tinsley __ United States Magistrate Judge ;