Marcum v. Prime Care Health Inc. et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION AND ORDER adopting 6 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION; denying as moot 1 APPLICATION by Gary Lee Marcum to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees or Costs; dismissing without prejudice this case for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This case no longer referred to Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 4/20/2017. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmr)

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

GARY LEE MARCUM,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-24167

PRIME CARE HEALTH INC., et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Gary Lee Marcum’s Application to Proceed Without
Prepayment of Fees (ECF No. 1) and his Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 2). By
Standing Order entered May 7, 2014, and filed in this case on August 1, 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. 6) on March
27, 2017, recommending that this Court dismiss this case without prejudice for failure to prosecute,
and deny as moot the Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees.
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 April 13, 2017. To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R (ECF No. 6), DENIES AS MOOT the
Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (ECF No. 1), and DISMISSES WITHOUT
PREJUDICE this case, for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
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

April 20, 2017