Howard v. Ballard

Filing 132

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 117 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; dismissing Plaintiff's claims against the West Virginia Division of Corrections and the West Virginia State Police, including the request for monetary damages against these defendants contained in paragraph 16 of the Second Amended Complaint; directing the Clerk to remove the West Virginia Division of Corrections and West Virginia State Police as parties to the present action. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 4/22/2016. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (tmh)

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

JOSEPH EUGENE HOWARD,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-11006

WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, filed on April 29,
2015. (ECF No. 98.) On May 14, 2013, this action was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and recommendations for
disposition.

On March 25, 2016, Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed a proposed findings and

recommendation (“PF&R”), (ECF No. 117), recommending that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s
claims for monetary damages against the West Virginia Division of Corrections and the West
Virginia State Police, and further dismiss those parties as defendants in the current action.
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 a party’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 11, 2016. To date, no objections have been
filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 117), and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s
claims against the West Virginia Division of Corrections and the West Virginia State Police,
including the request for monetary damages against these defendants contained in paragraph 16 of
the Second Amended Complaint. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to remove the West Virginia
Division of Corrections and the West Virginia State Police from the docket as parties to the present
action.
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:

April 22, 2016