Howard v. Ballard
Filing
153
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 150 , 151 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; granting Defendant Kelly Foster's 133 Motion to Dismiss; dismissing WITH PREJUDICE Kelly Foster as a defendant in this case; denying Plaintiff's 138 Letter-Form Motion for Judgment by Default; and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants Cory DiMallo, Lyle Lesher, James McCloud, T.E. Tawes, M.A. Elswick, and Officer Godfrey pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 2/24/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)
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
MOCC STAFF MEMBER DANIEL HAHN, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Kelly Foster’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 133) and
Plaintiff Joseph Eugene Howard’s Letter-Form Motion for Judgment by Default (ECF No. 138).
By Standing Order entered April 8, 2013, and filed in this case on May 14, 2013, this action was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings
and a recommendation (PF&R). Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed two PF&Rs (ECF Nos. 150 and
151) on February 1, 2017, recommending that this Court GRANT Defendant Foster’s Motion to
Dismiss, DENY Plaintiff’s Letter-Form Motion for Judgment by Default (ECF No. 138), and
DISMISS Defendants Cory DiMallo, Lyle Lesher, James McCloud, T.E. Tawes, M.A. Elswick,
and Officer Godfrey, without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
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&Rs in this case were
due on February 21, 2017. To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&Rs (ECF Nos. 150 and 151), GRANTS
Defendant Kelly Foster’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 133) and DISMISSES WITH
PREJUDICE Kelly Foster as a defendant in this case, DENIES Plaintiff’s Letter-Form Motion
for Judgment by Default (ECF No. 138), and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants
Cory DiMallo, Lyle Lesher, James McCloud, T.E. Tawes, M.A. Elswick, and Officer Godfrey
pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
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
February 24, 2017
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?