Pugh v. Coleman et al

Filing 42

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ECF NO. 32 AND GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT ECF NO. 16 . The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter default with respect to Defendant Coleman. Signed by Chief District Judge Thomas S Kleeh on 5/10/2024. Copy to Pro Se Defendant by CM/RRR. (mas) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/10/2024: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (mas).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
ETHAN PUGH,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL NO. 2:23-CV-11
(KLEEH)

MICHAEL SEAN COLEMAN,
APRIL RILEY,
STEVEN GRAHAM, and
PAT RYAN,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 32] AND
GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT [ECF NO. 16]
On September 18, 2023, Plaintiff Ethan Pugh (“Plaintiff”)
filed a Complaint against Defendants Michael Sean Coleman, April
Riley, Steven Graham, and Pat Ryan.

Plaintiff proceeded to file

a motion for default judgment with respect to Defendant Coleman.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the local rules, the Court referred
the motion to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Aloi (the
“Magistrate Judge”).

On April 16, 2024, the Magistrate Judge

entered a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) construing the motion
as a motion for default (as opposed to default judgment) and
recommending that the Court grant it.
The R&R informed the parties that they had fourteen (14) days
from the date of service of the R&R to file “specific written
objections

identifying

the

portions

of

the

Report

and

PUGH V. COLEMAN ET AL.

2:23-CV-11

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 32] AND
GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT [ECF NO. 16]
Recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis for such
objection.”

It further warned them that the “[f]ailure to timely

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.”

Defendant Coleman accepted service

of the R&R on April 19, 2024.

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).

without

explanation,

any

Otherwise, “the Court may adopt,
of

the

magistrate

recommendations” to which there are no objections.

judge’s

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,

obligation to conduct a de novo review.

the

Court

is

under

no

Accordingly, the Court

reviewed the R&R for clear error. Upon careful review, and finding
no clear error, the Court ADOPTS the R&R [ECF No. 32].

The motion

for default judgment, which is construed as a motion for default
[ECF No. 16], is GRANTED.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter default
2

PUGH V. COLEMAN ET AL.

2:23-CV-11

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 32] AND
GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT [ECF NO. 16]
with respect to Defendant Coleman.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to
counsel of record and any unrepresented parties.
DATED: May 10, 2024
____________________________
THOMAS S. KLEEH, CHIEF JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

3