United States of America v. Threlkeld

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 23 Proposed Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; denying as moot the 1 Petition to Enforce an Internal Revenue Service Administrative Summons; dismissing this case; and directing this action removed from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 9/10/2015. (cc: petitioner, pro se; counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner,
v.

MISC. NO. 2:12-mc-00130

JOHN F. THRELKELD,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Petition of the United States of America to Enforce an
Internal Revenue Service Administrative Summons (the “Petition”). (ECF No. 1.) On May 7, 2014,
this Court referred this matter―pursuant to the Standing Order entered on May 7, 2014―to United
States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for pretrial management and submission of proposed
findings and recommendations for disposition (“PF&R”). (ECF No. 19.) Magistrate Judge Tinsley
filed his PF&R on January 9, 2015, in which he states the following:
A status conference was conducted in this matter on January 6, 2015. At
that time, the parties agreed to the dismissal of [the Petition] (ECF No. 1) due to
the filing of a Complaint for Federal Taxes, styled United States of America v. John
F. Threlkeld, Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-22847, filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.
(ECF No. 23 at 1.) Magistrate Judge Tinsley then recommends that the Court (1) find that the
Petition is now moot, (2) deny the Petition, and (3) dismiss this action from the docket of the Court.
(Id. at 1‒2.)

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 by January 26, 2015. (See ECF No. 23 at 2.)
To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 23), and finds that the Petition is
now moot. The Court therefore DENIES the Petition AS MOOT, (ECF No. 1), DISMISSES this
case, and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this action from the Court’s docket.
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:

September 10, 2015