Riley v. Williams et al

Filing 69

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by Chief Judge Gina M. Groh on 10/18/2017. Copy mailed to pro se plaintiff by CMRR. (cwm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2017: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (cwm).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MARTINSBURG
TONY D. RILEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:16-CV-26
(GROH)

C. WILLIAMS, Warden, FCI Gilmer,
MR. WEAVER, Medical Director, FCI Gilmer,
DR. ANDERSON, MD Doctor, FCI Gilmer,
MRS. GROVE, Assist. Medical Director, FCI Gilmer;
MRS. WILSON, PA3 FCI Gilmer;
MRS. HALL, Nurse, FCI Gilmer;
MRS. POSEY; and MRS. PUTNAM;
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of
the Report and Recommendation (AR&R@) of United States Magistrate Judge James E.
Seibert. Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate
Judge Seibert for submission of a proposed R&R. Magistrate Judge Seibert issued his
R&R [ECF No. 66] on September 19, 2017.

In the R&R, he recommends that the

Plaintiff=s complaint [ECF No. 1] be dismissed without prejudice.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C), this Court is required to make a de novo
review of those portions of the magistrate judge=s findings to which objection is made.
However, 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 of de novo review and
of a Plaintiff’s right to appeal this Court’s Order.

28.U.S.C..'.636(b)(1); Snyder v.

Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91,
94 (4th Cir. 1984).
Objections to Magistrate Judge Seibert=s R&R were due within fourteen plus three
days of the Plaintiff being served with a copy of the same. 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court notes that the R&R was mailed to the Plaintiff and returned
as undeliverable.

Accordingly, no objections have been filed.

However, the Court

emphasizes that the Plaintiff has a continuing obligation to keep the Court informed of his
mailing address. Despite this obligation, several pieces of mail sent to his registered
address have been returned as undeliverable. Thus, this Court will review the R&R for
clear error.
Upon careful review of the R&R, it is the opinion of this Court that Magistrate Judge
Seibert’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 66] should be, and is hereby,
ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated therein.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff=s Complaint [ECF.No. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE and the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute [ECF No.
56] is hereby GRANTED. This matter is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Court’s active
docket. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this Order to the pro se
Plaintiff and all counsel of record herein.
DATED: October 18, 2017

2