Gravely v. City of Charleston et al

Filing 35

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 21 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; denying without prejudice the defendants' 15 Motion for Summary Judgment; and directing that this case remain referred to Magistrate Judge Eifert for the purpose of conducting all remaining proceedings in accordance with the Court's 9/2/2010 Standing Order. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 1/23/2014. (cc: plaintiff, pro se; attys; any unrepresented party) (taq)

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

RICHARD GRAVELY,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-04209

CITY OF CHARLESTON, et al.,
Defendants

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Richard Gravely’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 March 6,
2013, 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 Cheryl A. Eifert. Magistrate Judge Eifert filed
her PF&R [ECF 21] on October 1, 2013, recommending that this Court deny Defendants’ motion
for summary judgment [ECF 15] on the grounds that it is premature.
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
October 18, 2013. To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 21] and DENIES Defendants’ motion
for summary judgment WITHOUT PREJUDICE [ECF 15]. The Court ORDERS that this case
remain referred to Magistrate Judge Eifert 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:

January 23, 2014