Spence v. City of Martinsburg WV et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by Chief Judge Gina M. Groh on 02/17/2021. (cwm) Copy mailed to pro se plaintiff by CMRR. (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/17/2021: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (cwm).
Case 3:20-cv-00163-GMG Document 8 Filed 02/17/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 45
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
WINSTON L. SPENCE, JR.,
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:20-CV-163
CITY OF MARTINSBURG WV,
MARTINSBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT,
CHIEF MAURY RICHARDS, in his individual
capacity and official capacity as an officer
of the Martinsburg Police Department,
PATROLMAN N. COOK, in his individual
capacity and official capacity as an
officer of the Martinsburg Police Department,
JOHN DOE(S) 1–3, in their individual capacity
and official capacity as officers of the
Martinsburg Police Department.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Now before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by United
States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble. ECF No. 7. Pursuant to this Court’s Local
Rules and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), this action was referred to Magistrate Judge
Trumble for a preliminary review to determine whether the Plaintiff’s Complaint set forth
any viable claims. ECF No. 5. On December 10, 2020, Magistrate Judge Trumble issued
his R&R, recommending that the complaint be dismissed. ECF No. 7. Magistrate Judge
Trumble further recommends that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis [ECF No. 2] be denied as moot.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C), this Court is required to conduct a de novo
review of those portions of the magistrate judge=s findings to which objection is made.
Case 3:20-cv-00163-GMG Document 8 Filed 02/17/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 46
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 objection is 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); 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)).
Objections to Magistrate Judge Trumble=s R&R were due within fourteen days after
being served with a copy of the same. 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The
R&R was mailed to the Plaintiff by certified mail, return receipt requested, and according
to the United States Postal Service’s website, it was delivered on December January 19,
2021. To date, the Plaintiff has not filed objections to the R&R. Thus, this Court will
review the R&R for clear error.
In his R&R, Magistrate Judge Trumble found that the Plaintiff has failed to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. Upon careful review, and finding no error of fact
Recommendation [ECF No. 7] is ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated therein. The
Plaintiff’s Complaint [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Defendant
Martinsburg Police Department and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to
Defendants City of Martinsburg, Chief Maury Richards, Patrolman N. Cook, and
Case 3:20-cv-00163-GMG Document 8 Filed 02/17/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 47
John Doe(s) 1–3. The Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is
DENIED AS MOOT. ECF No. 2
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to STRIKE this case from the Court’s active
docket. The Clerk is further DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff
by certified mail, return receipt requested, at his last known address as reflected on the
DATED: February 17, 2021
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?