Harper v. Barbagallo et al
Filing
42
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 34 Proposed Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; granting Defendant Ramsey's 19 Motion to Allow Late Filing of Answer; denying Plaintiff's 16 Motion for Default Judgment; and denying as moot the 24 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 8/17/2015. (cc: plaintiff, pro se; counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
CEDEAL HARPER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-07529
C.O. JOSEPH BARBAGALLO, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are Defendant Ramsey’s Motion to Allow Late Filing of Answer,
(ECF No. 19), Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, (ECF No. 16), and Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel Service of Answer/Motion for Default Judgment (the “Motion to Compel”),1 (ECF No.
24). By Standing Order entered on April 8, 2013, and filed in this case on February 7, 2014, this
action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of
proposed findings and recommendations for disposition (“PF&R”). (ECF No. 5.) Magistrate Judge
Tinsley filed a PF&R on July 17, 2015, recommending that this Court grant Defendant Ramsey’s
Motion to Allow Late Filing of Answer, deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, and deny
as moot the Motion to Compel. (ECF No. 34.)
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
1
Plaintiff styled the Motion to Compel as a “Motion to Compell [sic] Service of Answer/Motion for Default
Judgment.” (ECF No. 24.)
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 July 17, 2015 PF&R were due by August 3, 2015. To date, no objections
have been filed.
Accordingly the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 34), GRANTS Defendant
Ramsey’s Motion to Allow Law Filing of Answer, (ECF No. 19), DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for
Default Judgment, (ECF No. 16), and DENIES AS MOOT the Motion to Compel, (ECF No. 24).
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:
August 17, 2015
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?