Molineaux v. Vickers et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 4 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; denying the 1 Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees; dismissing 2 the Complaint; and directing this case removed from the docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 1/18/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)

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

KEITH MARTIN MOLINEAUX, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-12270

JUDGE CHARLES M. VICKERS, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Keith Martin Molineaux, Jr.’s Application to Proceed Without
Prepayment of Fees (ECF No. 1) and Complaint (ECF No. 2). By Standing Order entered
February 7, 2014, and filed in this case on March 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 No. 4) on December
22, 2016, recommending that this Court DENY Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without
Prepayment of Fees and DISMISS Plaintiff’s Complaint.
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 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 PF&R in this case were
due on January 9, 2017. To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R (ECF No. 4), DENIES the Application to
Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (ECF No. 1), DISMISSES the Complaint (ECF No. 2), and
directs the Clerk’s Office to remove this case from the docket. A separate Judgment Order will
enter this day implementing the rulings contained herein.
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

January 18, 2017