Ruther v. Anderson et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 8 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, directing that this case be transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia for further proceedings; directing the Clerk to remove this case from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 5/28/2014. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmh)

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

L. RUTHER,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-32919

RANDALL ANDERSON, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINIONAND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint [ECF 1]. By Standing Order entered
April 8, 2013, and filed in this case on January 13, 2014, 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 8] on April 29, 2014, recommending
that this Court find that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) the interests of justice weigh in favor
transferring this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.
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 May
16, 2014. To date, no objections have been filed; however, the PF&R states that Plaintiff has
previously communicated to Magistrate Judge Tinsley that he wants this case be transferred to the
Northern District of West Virginia.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 8], ORDERS that this case be
TRANSFERRED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of West Virginia for further proceedings, and DIRECTS the Clerk to 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:

May 28, 2014