Portee v. United States Department of Agriculture et al
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 9 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; and denying plaintiff's 5 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 9/15/2016. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
ANDRE JAVION PORTEE
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-13928
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. (ECF No. 5.) On
October 13, 2015, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for
submission of proposed findings and recommendations (“PF&R”). (ECF No. 4.) Magistrate
Judge Tinsley filed an amended PF&R on July 14, 2016, recommending that this Court deny
Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 9.)
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).
Objections to the PF&R in this case were due on August 1, 2016. To date, no objections
have been filed.1
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 9), and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion
for default judgment, (ECF No. 5).
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:
September 15, 2016
As detailed in the PF&R, Plaintiff’s seeks review of a final agency decision rendered by a division of the United
States Department of Agriculture, but his original complaint does not include a complete copy of that decision. In
response, Plaintiff filed, on July 20, 2016, a copy of the complete agency decision in question. (ECF No. 10.) As
this additional filing does not challenge Magistrate Judge Tinsley’s analysis with respect to Plaintiff’s entitlement to
default judgment, the Court does not construe it as an objection to the PF&R.
1
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?