Myers v. General Motors
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by Chief Judge Gina M. Groh on 3/27/2018. Copy sent certified mail, return receipt to pro se Plaintiff.(tlg) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/27/2018: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (tlg).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:17-CV-122
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Currently pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
issued by United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble. ECF No. 9. Pursuant to
this Court’s Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Trumble for
submission of an R&R. On March 7, 2018, Magistrate Judge Trumble issued his R&R,
recommending that this Court dismiss the Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and deny
as moot his application to proceed in forma pauperis.
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). Moreover, “[w]hen a party does
make objections, but these objections are so general or conclusory that they fail to direct
the district court to any specific error by the magistrate judge, de novo review is
unnecessary.” Green v. Rubenstein, 644 F. Supp. 2d 723, 730 (S.D. W. Va. 2009) (citing
Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982)).
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 same. The R&R was sent to the Plaintiff by certified
mail, return receipt requested, on March 7, 2018. ECF No. 9. The Plaintiff accepted
service on March 12, 2018. ECF No. 10. The Plaintiff filed his objections on March 23,
ECF No. 11.
However, the Plaintiff did not make any specific objections.
Rather, he reiterated his initial complaint and requested that the Court permit him to
proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, without any specific objections, de novo review
Upon careful review and finding no clear error, the Court ORDERS that Magistrate
Judge Trumble’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 9] is ADOPTED for the reasons
more fully stated therein.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Complaint [ECF No. 1] is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 5] is DENIED AS MOOT.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to strike this case from the Court’s active docket and
transmit a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff by certified mail, return receipt
DATED: March 27, 2018
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?