MAURICE-EDWARD: THOMPSON v. S. WILSHIRE

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

MAURICE-EDWARD: THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-cv-00268 S. WILSHIRE, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On February 3, 2026, Magistrate Judge Tinsley submitted his Proposed Findings & Recommendations (“PF&R”), [ECF No. 38], and recommended that Defendant’s motion be GRANTED and that this civil action be DISMISSED with prejudice and removed from the court’s docket.

A district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This court is not, however, 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).

The court notes that Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on February 20, 2026. [ECF No. 39].

However, Plaintiff’s notice is not an appropriate objection, nor does the court construe it as one.

Accordingly, without objection, the court adopts and incorporates herein the PF&R. Defendant’s motion, [ECF No. 33], is GRANTED, and this civil action is DISMISSED with prejudice. The court DIRECTS that this action be removed from the docket.

The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.

ENTER: February 25, 2026 ee STATES DISTRICT JUDGE