White v. Duncil

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 8 Proposed Findings and Recommendation and dismissing this case from the docket; a seperate Judgment Order will enter this day implementing the rulings contained herein. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 4/6/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION

JESS W. WHITE,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-cv-00001

WILLIAM DUNCIL, et al.
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This case was opened by order of U.S. Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort on January
3, 2012, after Plaintiff made complaints concerning his conditions of confinement in a related case.
(Docket 1.) By Standing Order entered September 2, 2010, and filed in this case on January 3,
2012, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mary E. Stanley for submission of
proposed findings and a recommendation (PF&R). Magistrate Judge Stanley filed her PF&R
[Docket 8] on March 13, 2012, recommending that this Court dismiss this case for failure to
prosecute and for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Docket 8 at 4-6.)
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 the Petitioner’s right to appeal this
Court’s Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th
Cir.1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). In addition, this Court need

not conduct a de novo review when a party “makes general and conclusory objections that do not
direct the Court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.”
Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Objections to the PF&R in this case were
due on March 30, 2012. To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Docket 8] and DISMISSES this case from
the docket. A separate Judgment Order will enter this day implementing the rulings contained
herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.
ENTER:

April 6, 2012

_________________________________________
THOMAS E. JOHNSTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE