Simpson v. Go-Mart Inc.

Filing 16

ORDER accepting and incorporating the 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; dismissing the plaintiff's 2 , 4 and 9 integrated Amended Complaint without prejudice; and denying the 1 Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs; directing this action be removed from the active docket. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 7/18/2013. (cc: plaintiff, pro se; attys; any unrepresented party) (taq)

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

CORY A. SIMPSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-06334

GO-MART INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER

This action was referred to the Honorable Dwane L. Tinsley, United States Magistrate
Judge, for submission to this court of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for
disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The Magistrate Judge has submitted findings of
fact and has recommended that the court DISMISS the plaintiff’s integrated Amended Complaint
[Docket 2, 4, and 9] for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and DENY the plaintiff’s Application to
Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs [Docket 1]. Judge Tinsley’s Proposed Findings &
Recommendation (“PF&R”) [Docket 13] gave the plaintiff until June 17, 2013 to file his
objections. On June 6, 2013, the plaintiff sent a letter [Docket 15] to inform the court that he is now
incarcerated at the South Central Regional Jail. The letter included an address to which the court
should send all correspondence related to the plaintiff’s civil action. The plaintiff’s address at the
South Central Regional Jail is now the address on the docket for the plaintiff. In cases where a
party proceeds pro se, the court attempts to be as lenient as possible regarding filing deadlines.

However, more than a month has passed since the deadline Judge Tinsley set for the plaintiff to file
his objections, and the court must conclude at this point that no objections to the PF&R have been
filed.
I.

Analysis

A district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C). This court is not, however, 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). As the parties have not filed objections in this case, the court accepts and incorporates
herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and orders judgment consistent
with the findings and recommendations.
Accordingly, the court DISMISSES the plaintiff’s integrated Amended Complaint
[Dockets 2, 4, and 9] without prejudice, and DENIES the plaintiff’s Application to Proceed
without Prepayment of Fees and Costs [Docket 1]. The court DIRECTS this action to be removed
from the active docket. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of
record and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

July 18, 2013