Tamburo v. Hall et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER pursuant to plaintiff's 2 complaint, adopting the 7 Proposed Findings and Recommendation; dismissing as moot plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, and dismissing plaintiff's cla ims for monetary relief insofar as those claims are asserted against the defendants in their official capacities; directing that this case remain referred to the current Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for the purpose of conducting all remaining proceedings in accordance with the Court's 5 September 2, 2010 Standing Order. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 5/28/2013. (cc: plaintiff, pro se; attys; any unrepresented party) (taq)

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

STEPHEN J. TAMBURO, III,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-01537

SCOTT HALL, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Stephen J. Tamburo’s 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 January
29, 2013, this action was referred to former United States Magistrate Judge Mary E. Stanley for
submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Stanley
filed her PF&R [ECF 7] on March 22, 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 Stanley further recommended
that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for monetary relief insofar as those claims are asserted
against the Defendants in their official capacities, but permit the case to remain referred to the
Magistrate for the purpose of conducting additional proceedings concerning Plaintiff’s claims
against the Defendants in their individual capacities.
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 April
8, 2013. To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 7], DISMISSES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s
claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims for monetary relief
insofar as those claims are asserted against the Defendants in their official capacities. The Court
ORDERS that this case remain referred to the current Magistrate Judge Dwane L. 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

May 28, 2013