Finley v. Tomblin et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER no objections have been filed; adopting the 7 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; denying plaintiff's 4 Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs; dismissing this civil action WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and directing this matter removed from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 4/25/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)

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

OSCAR L. FINLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-26206

GOVERNOR EARL RAY TOMBLIN, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Notice of Intent to File Civil Rights Complaint,”
(ECF No. 1), and Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (“IFP
Application”), (ECF No. 4). By Standing Order entered in this case on September 25, 2014, this
action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for initial screening and
submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition (“PF&R”). Magistrate
Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on March 27, 2017, recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff’s
IFP Application and dismiss this case pursuant to the three strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g). (ECF No. 7.)
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. 7), DENIES Plaintiff’s
IFP Application, (ECF No. 4), DISMISSES this civil action WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and
DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this matter 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

April 25, 2017