Crangle et al v. State of West Virginia et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER overruling plaintiffs' 15 objections and adopting the 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; Tara Rose Allen Rooney-Crangle is DISMISSED as a plaintiff; denying without prejudice the [5 ] Emergency Motion for Grantable Justified Relief and Remedies, 8 Emergency Legal Motion-Petition for Expedited Relief and Remedies, 9 Emergency Legal Motion for Summary Judgment, and 10 Emergency Legal Motion for Grantable Relief and Re medies; plaintiff may file an amended complaint by 9/26/2016, in accordance with Magistrate Judge Tinsley's 14 Order and Notice; plaintiff must properly complete an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs signed by an authorized financial officer at the prison. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 9/21/2016. (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 CRANGLE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-14564

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff James Crangle’s Complaint filed on behalf of himself and his
wife, Tara Rose Allen Rooney-Crangle. (ECF No. 1.) By Standing Order entered May 7, 2014,
and filed in this case on November 2, 2015, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Dwane L.
Tinsley for submission of Findings of Fact and Recommendations (“PF&R”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge submitted his PF&R, (ECF No. 13), on August 26, 2016,
recommending that this Court dismiss Tara Rose Allen Rooney-Crangle as a plaintiff and deny
without prejudice Plaintiffs’ “Emergency Motion for Grantable Justified Relief and Remedies,”
(ECF No. 5), “Emergency Legal Motion-Petition for Expedited Relief and Remedies,” (ECF No.
8), “Emergency Legal Motion for Summary Judgment,” (ECF No. 9), and “Emergency Legal
Motion for Grantable Relief and Remedies." (ECF No. 10. See ECF No. 13.)
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 recommendations
1

to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Objections to
the PF&R were due on September 12, 2016. Plaintiffs’ objections were not filed until September
16, 2016. (ECF No. 15.) However, the postmark indicates the objections were mailed on
September 12, 2016. (Id. at 7.) Given that Plaintiff James Crangle is pro se and was incarcerated
at the time of mailing, the prisoner mailbox rule applies to make the objections timely. The issues
are fully briefed and the matter is now ripe for the Court’s consideration.
Plaintiffs’ filing contains no real “objections.” In addition maybe to reiterating some of
the matters contained in the complaint and citing some general legal authority, the “objection”
document does not appear intelligibly to relate to anything found within the PF&R.

(See

generally id.)
Plaintiff questions Magistrate Judge Tinsley’s impartiality with cursory statements such as,
“Mr. Tinsley is not objective . . . [and] appears to be obviously . . . very biased and prejudiced . . .
as (a) prosecutor and/or (b) government lawyer for executive branch.” (See id. at 1 (emphasis in
original).) These statements are not specific and do not demonstrate judicial bias. See, e.g.,
NLRB v. Honaker Mills, Div. of Top Form Mills, Inc., 789 F.2d 262, 266–67 (4th Cir. 1986) (noting
that some of the judge’s remarks about which the plaintiff complained were “at least innocuous,
and at most injudicious,” but “[did] not rise to the level necessary to support the serious charge of
judicial bias”). Further, to the extent that Plaintiff objects to the reference itself to the Magistrate
Judge, that objection is clearly without merit under 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Ultimately, Plaintiff does not direct the Court to any specific portion of the PF&R to which
he objects on behalf of himself and his wife. Thus, Plaintiffs’ Objections are OVERRULED.

2

Therefore, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs’ Objections and ADOPTS the PF&R. (ECF
No. 13.) Accordingly, Tara Rose Allen Rooney-Crangle is DISMISSED as a plaintiff and the
following motions are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE: “Emergency Motion for Grantable
Justified Relief and Remedies,” (ECF No. 5), “Emergency Legal Motion-Petition for Expedited
Relief and Remedies,” (ECF No. 8), “Emergency Legal Motion for Summary Judgment,” (ECF
No. 9), and “Emergency Legal Motion for Grantable Relief and Remedies." (ECF No. 10.)
Plaintiff may still file an amended complaint by September 26, 2016, in accordance with
Magistrate Judge Tinsley’s Order and Notice issued August 26, 2016. (ECF No. 14 at 6–8.)
Upon filing an amended complaint, Plaintiff must properly complete an Application to Proceed
Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs signed by an authorized financial officer at the prison.
The application attached to Plaintiff’s objections filed on September 16, 2016, was deficient
because it was not signed by an authorized officer.
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:

3

September 21, 2016