Wiley et al v. W.V. House of Delegates et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 9 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; dismissing the 1 Complaint; denying Plaintiff Patrick Collins' 2 Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs; and directing this action removed from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 2/17/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)

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

WILLIAM WILEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-10974

W.V. HOUSE OF DELEGATES, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ pro se Complaint—a putative class action filed on
behalf of 61 inmates at the Huttonsville Correctional Center in Huttonsville, West Virginia. (ECF
No. 1.) Also pending is an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs filed
by Plaintiff Patrick Collins (“IFP Application”). (ECF No. 2.) The Complaint principally
challenges the constitutionality of the West Virginia Sex Offender Registration Act, § 15-21-1 et
seq. By Standing Order filed in this case on February 28, 2014, this action was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley on for submission of proposed findings and a
recommendation (“PF&R”). (ECF No. 4.) Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on January
30, 2017, (ECF No. 9), recommending that this Court dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted and deny Plaintiff Collins’ IFP Application.
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 a party’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 in this case were due on February 16, 2017. To date, no
objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 9), DISMISSES the Complaint,
(ECF No. 1), DENIES Plaintiff Patrick Collins’ IFP Application, (ECF No. 2), 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:

2

February 17, 2017