Health Care Justice Foundation, PBC et al v. Huntington Bank Inc. Officials & Agents et al

Filing 72

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Court ADOPTS the PF&R, ECF No. 68 , GRANTS Defendants motion to dismiss, ECF No. 7 , and DISMISSES this action. The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this action from the docket of the Court. Signed by Chief District Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 3/15/2019. (copy counsel of record via CM/ECF, copy pro se plaintiff via certified mail)(jmm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/15/2019: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (jmm).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HEALTH CARE JUSTICE PBC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-cv-00125

HUNTINGTON BANK INC. OFFICIALS &
AGENTS, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendants Brad Pustoloski and John Lanham’s motion to
dismiss. (ECF No. 7.) By Order of Reference entered in this case on October 23, 2018, this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Aloi for submission of a report
and recommendation for disposition (“R&R”). (ECF No. 54.) Magistrate Judge Aloi entered his
R&R on December 3, 2018, recommending that the Court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss in
its entirety and, as there would be no surviving federal question claims, dismiss Plaintiff’s
remaining state law claim. (ECF No. 68.)
“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition
that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The 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 findings or recommendation to which no objections are addressed.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver
1

of de novo review. 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 March 4, 2019. To date, no objections
have been filed. 1

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 68), GRANTS

Defendants’ motion to dismiss, (ECF No. 7), and DISMISSES this action. The Court further
DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this action from the docket of the Court.
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:

1

March 15, 2019

The Court notes that Plaintiff did file two motions requesting that the Court dismiss the case without prejudice.
(ECF Nos. 69, 70.) However, because Plaintiff is not a licensed attorney, Plaintiff cannot file anything on behalf of
any of the companies he names as plaintiffs to this action. See Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory
Council, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993) (“It has been the law for the better part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may
appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel.”). Therefore, even were the Court to dismiss this action
without prejudice, Plaintiff would still not be able to refile this action on behalf of those companies.

2