Hill v. VAMC Martinsburg et al

Filing 7

ORDER ADOPTING 5 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ; denying as moot 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; and dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff's 1 Complaint. Signed by Chief Judge Gina M. Groh on 10/18/2016. Copy sent certified mail, return receipt to pro se Plaintiff.(tlg) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2016: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (tlg).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MARTINSBURG

MICHAEL C. HILL,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:16-CV-102
(GROH)

VAMC MARTINSBURG, TERRY STOTLER,
JIM LOCKARD, RAY MOORE, and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court for consideration of a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble. This action was
referred to Magistrate Judge Trumble for submission of an R&R. On July 7, 2016,
Magistrate Judge Trumble issued his R&R, in which he recommends that this Court
dismiss without prejudice the Plaintiff’s complaint [ECF No. 1] and deny as moot the
Plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees [ECF No. 2].
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, this Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the
factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge to which no objections are made.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file objections in a timely manner
constitutes a waiver of de novo review and a plaintiff’s right to appeal this Court’s Order.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United
States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984).
In this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, objections to Magistrate Judge Trumble’s R&R were due within
fourteen days after being served with a copy of the R&R. The Plaintiff was served with
the R&R on July 11, 2016. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court
will review the R&R for clear error.
Upon careful review of the record, and finding no error, it is the opinion of this Court
that Magistrate Judge Trumble’s Report and Recommendation should be, and is, hereby
ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated therein. The Court ORDERS
that the Plaintiff’s complaint [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED without prejudice and the
Plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees [ECF No. 2] is DENIED as
moot.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff by
certified mail, return receipt requested.
DATED: October 18, 2016

2