Harper v. Blagg et al

Filing 73

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION ORDER Adopting 26 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; denying plaintiff's 20 & 21 Motions for Default Judgment by the Court pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2), FRCivP; Pursuant to the Courts 3/18/2014, Order, this case remains referred to Magistrate Judge Tinsley for further proceedings Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 5/15/2014. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmr)

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

CEDEAL HARPER,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-19796

MICHAEL BLAGG, et al.
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ pro se Complaint (ECF 2, 3) filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of
proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). On September 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed a
motion for default judgment [ECF 20, 21], and Defendants filed a response in opposition (ECF
22).

Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on September 25, 2013, recommending that the

Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment [ECF 26].
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&R were due on
October 15, 2013. To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 26] and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for
default judgment [ECF 20, 21.]. Pursuant to the Court’s March 18, 2014, Order, this case remains
referred to Magistrate Judge Tinsley for further proceedings.
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

May 15, 2014