Phillips et al v. Thaxton et al
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 6 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and 9 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, denying Plaintiffs' 1 APPLICATION to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, dismissing with prejudice Plaintiffs' 2 COMPLAINT and 7 AMENDED COMPLAINT, and directing the Court to remove this case from the Court's Docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 4/18/2014. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
SHANNON PHILLIPS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-16975
WILBUR THAXTON, II, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ pro se Complaint [ECF 2] and amended Complaint [ECF
7] filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By Standing Order entered April 8, 2013, and filed in this case
on July 5, 2013, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley 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 first PF&R [ECF 6] on August 30, 2013, recommending that this Court dismiss with prejudice
Plaintiffs’ Complaint [ECF 2] against Defendant Wilbur Thaxton, II. Magistrate Judge Eifert
also recommended that Plaintiffs’ application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs and
further proceedings on the claims against Defendant Vriendt be held in abeyance pending
amendment of the Complaint per the magistrate judge’s August 29, 2013, Order (ECF 5).
On September 19, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their amended Complaint (ECF 7). Magistrate
Judge Eifert filed her PF&R [ECF 9] on October 25, 2013, recommending that this Court deny
Plaintiffs’ application to proceed without payment of fees and costs and dismiss this case with
prejudice.
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 first PF&R (ECF 6) were
due on September 16, 2013. Objections to the second PF&R were due November 12, 2013. To
date, no objections have been filed for either PF&R.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the first and second PF&Rs [ECF 6, 9], DENIES
Plaintiffs’ application to proceed without payment of fees and costs [ECF 1], DISMISSES WITH
PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ Complaint [ECF 2] and amended Complaint [ECF 7], and DIRECTS
the Court remove this case from the Court’s Docket.
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
April 18, 2014
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?