Mullins v. Prime Care Medical, Inc. et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 10 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, dismissing as moot Plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, and dismisses Plaintiff's claims for monetary relief against Defendant Southwestern Regional Jail; directing that this case remain referred to Magistrate Judge Tinsley for the purpose of conducting all remaining proceedings. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 6/21/2013. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmh)

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

GERALD DAVID MULLINS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-cv-05825

PRIME CARE MEDICAL, INC., and
SOUTHWESTERN REGIONAL JAIL,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Gerald D. Mullins’ pro se Complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 [ECF 2]. By Standing Order entered September 2, 2010 and filed in this case on September
25, 2012, this action was referred to former United States Magistrate Judge Mary E. Stanley for
submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Referral of this action was
later transferred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley. Magistrate Judge Tinsley
filed his PF&R [ECF 10] on May 24, 2013, recommending that this Court dismiss as moot
Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief in light of the fact that Plaintiff has been
transferred to a different correctional facility. Magistrate Judge Tinsley further recommended
that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for monetary relief against Southwestern Regional Jail,
but permit the case to remain referred to the Magistrate for the purpose of conducting additional
proceedings concerning Plaintiff’s claims for monetary relief against Defendant PrimeCare
Medical, Inc.

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 were due on June
10, 2013. To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 10], DISMISSES AS MOOT
Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims for
monetary relief against Defendant Southwestern Regional Jail. The Court ORDERS that this
case remain referred to Magistrate Judge Tinsley for the purpose of conducting all remaining
proceedings in accordance with the Court’s September 2, 2010 Standing Order.
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:

2

June 21, 2013