Casto v. State of West Virginia et al

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 19 Proposed Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; directing that this action is dismissed without prejudice and stricken from the docket. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 2/13/2015. (cc: plaintiff, pro se; attys; United States Magistrate Judge) (taq)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON
THOMAS WILSON CASTO,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 2:13-2460

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA and
COUNTY OF JACKSON and
OFFICERS, AGENTS, ADMINISTRATORS,
CLERKS AND STATE POLICE DEPT. and
SHANNON BALDWIN and
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OFFICE, JACKSON COUNTY and
TROOPER MARION,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This action was previously referred to Dwane L.
Tinsley, United States Magistrate Judge, who has submitted his
Proposed Findings and Recommendation pursuant to the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

The court has reviewed the

Proposed Findings and Recommendation entered by the magistrate
judge on October 21, 2014.

The magistrate judge recommends that

the case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to
prosecute.
The plaintiff has not objected to the Proposed
Findings and Recommendation.

The court has undertaken

substantial measures to provide notice to him.

On November 19,

2013, the court received from Mr. Casto a change-of-address
notification reflecting that mail should be sent to him at
Denmar Correctional Center.

On October 21, 2014, the magistrate

judge sent the Proposed Findings and Recommendation to Mr. Casto
at that facility.

The mailing was returned as undeliverable.

On November 3, 2014, the mailing was sent to him anew at the
South Central Regional Jail after it was learned that he was
there incarcerated.

That mailing was also returned

undeliverable.
After contacting the West Virginia Division of
Corrections, the magistrate judge learned that Mr. Casto had
been placed on parole and was residing at his current listed
address in Ripley, West Virginia.

The magistrate judge directed

that the proposed findings and recommendation be sent to him at
that address, with the objection period running from December 4,
2014.

That final mailing has not been returned and Mr. Casto

has not objected or otherwise responded.

.

Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED
as follows:
1.

That the Proposed Findings and Recommendation be, and
it hereby is, adopted by the court;
2

2.

That this action be, and hereby is, dismissed without
prejudice and stricken from the docket.
The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this

written opinion and order to the pro se plaintiff at his last
known mailing address, all counsel of record, and the United
States Magistrate Judge.
DATED:

February 13, 2015

John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
United States District Judge

3