Howard v. Howe et al

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING 11 Report and Recommendations and dismisses with case without prejudice and orders it stricken from the Court's docket. Court directs the clerk to enter a separate judgment order. Signed by District Judge Irene M. Keeley on 10/4/12. (Attachments: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt)(jss)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CAROL J. HOWARD,
Plaintiff,
v.

//

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11CV205
(Judge Keeley)

MARTIN HOWE, ADAM BARBERIO,
RALPH PETERSON, and FRANK FERRARI,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On December 22, 2011, the pro se plaintiff, Carol J. Howard
(“Howard”),

filed

a

complaint

that

purported

to

allege

that

defendants Martin Howe, Adam Barberio, Ralph Peterson, and Frank
Ferrari (collectively “the defendants”) had violated her civil
rights. In accordance with L.R. Civ. P. 72.01(d)(6), the Court
referred this matter to United States Magistrate Judge John S.
Kaull who, on April 25, 2012, notified Howard that this action
would be dismissed unless she rectified the deficiencies in her
complaint. He also ordered her to file an amended complaint in
compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) within thirty (30) days. To
date, Howard has not amended her complaint.
On June 1, 2012, Magistrate Judge Kaull issued an Opinion and
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), in which he recommended that
this action be dismissed without prejudice because Howard had
failed to amend her complaint in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8,
and had not otherwise kept the Court apprised of her current

HOWARD V. HOWE, ET AL.

1:12CV205

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
mailing address.1 The R&R also specifically warned Howard that her
failure to object to the recommendation would result in the waiver
of any appellate rights she might otherwise have on this issue. She
did not file any objections.2 Finding no clear error, the Court
ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety (dkt. no. 11),
DISMISSES this case WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and ORDERS that it be
stricken from the Court’s docket.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, the Court directs the Clerk of
Court to enter a separate judgment order and to transmit copies of
both orders to counsel of record and to the pro se plaintiff,
certified mail, return receipt requested.
Dated: October 4, 2012.
/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

The Clerk provided Howard with Notice of General Guidelines For
Appearing Pro Se in Federal Court on December 22, 2011. (Dkt. No. 3). The
Notice directed Howard to keep the Court and opposing counsel, if any,
advised of her most current address at all times, and warned explicitly
that “Failure to do so may result in your action being dismissed without
prejudice.” Nevertheless, several documents sent to Howard at the sole
address for her on file, including the R&R itself, have returned as
“undeliverable.”
2

The failure to object to the Report and Recommendation not only waives
the appellate rights in this matter, but also relieves the Court of any
obligation to conduct a de novo review of the issue presented. See Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-153 (1985); Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d
198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1997).

2