Howard v. Ballard

Filing 163

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 162 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; granting defendants' 160 Motion for Summary Judgment; and dismissing this case from the docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 7/27/2017. (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 Defendants David Ballard, Curtis Dixon, Daniel Hahn, David Miller,
Jim Rubenstein, and Aaron Sargent’s (“Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
160). 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 his PF&R (ECF No.
162) on July 7, 2017, recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment.
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 Plaintiff’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 in this case were
due on July 24, 2017. To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R (ECF No. 162), GRANTS Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 160), and DISMISSES this case from the docket. A
separate Judgment Order will enter this day implementing the rulings contained herein.
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

July 27, 2017