Robertson v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Department of Behavioral Health et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 6 Proposed Findings and Recommendation of the magistrate judge; construing plaintiff's letter-form motion to withdraw as a motion for the voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2); granting the 3 Motion to Withdraw; dismissing this case without prejudice; and directing this action removed from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 11/18/2015. (cc: plaintiff, pro se; counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)

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

JAMES BUFORD ROBERTSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-01971

WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES,
DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s letter-form motion, which the Clerk interpreted as a
motion to withdraw the Complaint (the “Motion to Withdraw”). (ECF No. 3.) By Standing Order
entered on May 7, 2014 and filed in this case on February 19, 2015, this action was referred to
United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a
recommendation for disposition. (ECF No. 2.) On October 27, 2015, Magistrate Judge Tinsley
filed proposed findings and recommendations (the “PF&R”), in which he construes the Motion to
Withdraw “as a motion for an order of voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2)” and
recommends that the Court grant the Motion to Withdraw and dismiss this civil action without
prejudice. (ECF No. 6 at 1‒3.)
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).
Objections to the PF&R were due by November 13, 2015. (See ECF No. 6 at 3.) To date,
no party has filed objections to the PF&R.
Accordingly the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 6), and construes the Motion to
Withdraw as a motion for the voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(a)(2). The Court further GRANTS the Motion to Withdraw, (ECF No. 3),
DISMISSES this case WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this action
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:

November 18, 2015