Freeland v. Ballard et al

Filing 100

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 97 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION; denying Plaintiff's 49 for Preliminary Injunction and/or MOTION for Protective Order, 53 for Summary Judgment/or Default Judgment, and 91 for Temporary Restraining Order and MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 8/26/2014. (cc: plaintiff; attys; any unrepresented party) (tmh)

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

ELI WAYNE FREELAND,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-cv-08712

DAVID BALLARD, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction [ECF 49],
motion for summary judgment [ECF 53], and motion for a temporary restraining order [ECF 91].
By Standing Order entered on September 2, 2010, and filed in this case on December 10, 2012, this
action was referred to former United States Magistrate Mary E. Stanley, and later referred to
United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley, for submission of proposed findings and a
recommendation for disposition (PF&R). Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on August
5, 2014, recommending that this Court deny all three of Plaintiff’s motions.
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 Plaintiff’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 August 25, 2014. To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly the Court ADOPTS the PF&R and DENIES Plaintiff’s motions. [ECF 49,
53, & 91].
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

August 26, 2014