Mollohan et al v. Price et al

Filing 127

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 116 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge, denying without prejudice Plaintiff's 85 -2 MOTION for Summary Judgment, and denying without prejudice all similar request for summary ju dgment and permanent injunctive relief contained in ECF Nos. 82 , 91 , 92 , and 95 ; The Court leaves this matter referred to Magistrate Judge Tinsley for additional proceedings concerning the Plaintiffs' remaining claims. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 9/22/2015. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (tmh)

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

GERALD R. MOLLOHAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-32251

DONALD PRICE, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for summary judgment. (ECF 85-2.) By
Standing Order entered on April 8, 2013, and filed in this case on December 16, 2013, this action
was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed
findings and recommendations for disposition (“PF&R”). (ECF 4.) Magistrate Judge Tinsley
filed his PF&R on September 4, 2015, recommending that this Court deny without prejudice
Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (ECF 85-2) and all similar requests for summary
judgment and permanent injunctive relief contained in ECF Nos. 82, 91, 92, and 95. (ECF 116.)
This Court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C). However, 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
and recommendation to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150
1

(1985). 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).
Plaintiffs timely filed objections on September 18, 2015. (ECF 125.) Plaintiffs generally
object to the PF&R’s conclusion that the plaintiffs’ requests for summary judgment are premature,
but do not make any specific allegations of error. Because Plaintiffs make only “general and
conclusory allegations that do not direct the Court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed
findings and recommendations,” Orpiano, 687 F.2d at 47, the Court need not conduct a de novo
review of any part of the PF&R.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, DENIES

WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, (ECF 85-2), and DENIES
WITHOUT PREJUDICE all similar requests for summary judgment and permanent injunctive
relief contained in ECF Nos. 82, 91, 92, and 95. The Court leaves this matter referred to
Magistrate Judge Tinsley for additional proceedings concerning the Plaintiffs’ remaining claims.
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

September 22. 2015