Ray v. Prime Care Medical, Inc. et al

Filing 36

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 27 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; granting Defendant PrimeCare Medical, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss; DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this matter, and ORDERS that this action be removed from the docket of the Court; Plaintiff's miscellaneous 31 , 32 , 34 , and 35 requests for relief are not responsive to the PF&R and are therefore DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 8/25/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)

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

THOMAS RAY III,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-00948

PRIMECARE MEDICAL, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant PrimeCare Medical, Inc.’s (“PrimeCare”) Motion
to Dismiss (ECF No. 22). Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, this action was previously referred
to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a
recommendation for disposition (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R (ECF No.
27) on June 13, 2017, recommending that the Court grant PrimeCare’s motion and dismiss this
matter from the Court’s docket.
Parties are typically allotted fourteen days to lodge objections to a magistrate judge’s
findings and recommendation on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Thus, after
allowing an extra three days for mailing, objections to the PF&R were initially due by June 30,
2017. On June 30, 2017 and again on July 24, 2017, Plaintiff, a federal inmate incarcerated at
USP Terre Haute, submitted letters to the Court complaining that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”)
had been withholding his legal mail. The Court extended the objections period in an effort to
address these concerns. Objections were to be received by August 21, 2017.

On August 18, 2017, the Court received two additional letters from Plaintiff. Plaintiff
again asserts that BOP has stymied his ability to respond to the PF&R by confiscating his legal
mail. He also seeks a Court order directing the BOP to provide a particular form to facilitate
Plaintiff’s communication with his personal bank. To repeat: this Court is not the proper venue
for Plaintiff to advance claims regarding the conditions of his confinement and retaliatory conduct
by BOP. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Plaintiff might be able to pursue these claims in an independent
civil rights action filed in the appropriate federal or state court in Indiana. The Court’s role in the
instant matter is limited to a review of the PF&R, and Plaintiff has continually failed to file
anything recognizable as an objection to that document.
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).
As stated, objections to the PF&R were due on August 21, 2017. No objections have been
filed. The Court therefore ADOPTS the PF&R (ECF No. 27), GRANTS PrimeCare’s Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 22), DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this matter, and ORDERS that
this action be removed from the docket of the Court. Plaintiff’s miscellaneous requests for relief
(ECF Nos. 31, 32, 34, and 35) are not responsive to the PF&R and are therefore DENIED AS
MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.
ENTER:

3

August 25, 2017