Crandell v. United States of America et al

Filing 20

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 16 AND GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 11 . Signed by District Judge Thomas S. Kleeh on 6/27/19. (njz) copy mailed to pro se pla via cert. return rec't mail and emailed to counsel of record. (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/28/2019: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (njz).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
ELKINS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.
JOHN OSBORNE CRANDELL, III,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civ. Action No. 2:18-CV-124
(Kleeh)

HARDY COUNTY RURAL
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 16] AND
GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 11]
On November 29, 2018, the Plaintiff, John Osborne Crandell,
III (“Crandell”), filed this qui tam action under the False Claims
Act,

alleging

Development

that

the

Authority

Defendant,

(“HCRDA”),

the

Hardy

submitted

or

County
caused

Rural
to

be

submitted false claims to the United States of America under a
land

development

administered
Economic

by

grant
the

Development

program.

United

ECF

States

Authority

No.

1.

The

Department

(“EDA”)

in

Hardy

program

of

is

Commerce’s

County,

West

Virginia. Id.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the local rules, the Court
referred the action to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J.
Aloi for initial review. On March 8, 2019, after investigating the
claim, the United States notified the Court of its decision not to

CRANDELL V. HCRDA

2:18-CV-124

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 16] AND
GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 11]
intervene, and it moved to dismiss the action. ECF Nos. 10, 11.
On

May

22,

2019,

Judge

Aloi

entered

a

Report

and

Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court grant the
Motion to Dismiss. The R&R also informed the parties that they had
fourteen days to file “specific written objections, identifying
the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection
is made, and the basis of such objection.” ECF No. 16 at 12. It
further

warned

them

that

the

“[f]ailure

to

file

written

objections . . . shall constitute a waiver of de novo review by
the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit
Court of Appeals.” Id. Crandell received the R&R on May 25, 2019.
To date, no objections have been filed.
When reviewing a magistrate judge’s R&R, the Court must review
de novo only the portions to which an objection has been timely
made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Otherwise, “the Court may adopt,
without explanation, any of the magistrate judge’s recommendations
to which the [parties do] not object.” Dellarcirprete v. Gutierrez,
479 F. Supp. 2d 600, 603–04 (N.D.W. Va. 2007) (citing Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983)). Courts will uphold
portions of a recommendation to which no objection has been made
unless

they

are

clearly

erroneous.

See

Diamond

v.

Colonial

Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
Because

no

party

has

objected,
2

the

Court

is

under

no

CRANDELL V. HCRDA

2:18-CV-124

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 16] AND
GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 11]
obligation to conduct a de novo review. Accordingly, the Court
reviewed the R&R for clear error. Upon careful review, the Court:
(1)

ADOPTS the R&R [ECF No. 16] for reasons
more fully stated therein;

(2)

GRANTS the Government’s Motion to Dismiss
[ECF No. 11]; and

(3)

STRIKES this action
docket of the Court.

from

the

active

It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to
counsel of record and to the pro se plaintiff, via certified mail,
return receipt requested.
DATED: June 27, 2019

____________________________
THOMAS S. KLEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3