Wallace v. Henning et al

Filing 90

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by Chief Judge Gina M. Groh on 7/28/2021. Copy sent certified mail, return receipt to pro se Plaintiff.(tlg) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/28/2021: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (tlg).

Case 3:18-cv-00049-GMG-RWT Document 90 Filed 07/28/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 482

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MARTINSBURG
TYRONE R. WALLACE,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:18-CV-49
(GROH)

OFFICER N. HENNING, CAPTAIN GILLIAN,
CAPTAIN YOUNG, LT. MOODY, STS LT. ERVING,
LT. GRUNDY, LT. TOODLE, OFFICER S. LEGG,
OFFICER GAINER, MS. POSSE, MS. LANDERS,
and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
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 Robert W.
Trumble. Pursuant to the Local Rules, this civil action was referred to Judge Trumble for
submission of a proposed R&R. Magistrate Judge Trumble issued an R&R [ECF No. 86]
on June 14, 2021. In the R&R, Judge Trumble recommends that Defendant Lt. Moody
aka Mooney be dismissed with 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.

Case 3:18-cv-00049-GMG-RWT Document 90 Filed 07/28/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 483

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 Trumble=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). Service was accepted by the pro se Plaintiff on June 21, 2021. ECF
No. 87. Therefore, after allowing additional time for transit in the mail, the Court finds
that the deadline for the Plaintiff to submit objections to the R&R has passed.

No

objections have been filed. Accordingly, 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
Trumble=s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 86] should be, and is hereby,
ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated therein. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
Motion for an extension of time [ECF No. 83] is DENIED, 1 and the Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss is GRANTED. ECF No. 74. As to Defendant Lieutenant Moody only, this case
is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to the Plaintiff by
certified mail, return receipt requested, at his last known address as reflected on the
docket sheet.
DATED: July 28, 2021

1 The Court notes that this case is more than three years old. The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was
filed on November 3, 2020. ECF No. 74. The Magistrate Judge issued a Roseboro Notice six months
later on May 7, 2021. ECF No. 79. Thereafter, the Plaintiff moved for an extension to file a response with
no meaningful explanation. Although the Court generally provides extensions to pro se parties, the
circumstances of this case do not warrant such an extension.

2