Winfree v. South Central Regional Jail et al

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 25 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; and GRANTS Defendants' 16 , 19 , 22 Motions to dismiss and the PrimeCare Medical Defendants' 24 Motion for Joinder; the Court further dismisses this matter WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 41(b); and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this action from the docket of the Court. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 2/6/2018. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)

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

SHAWN P. WINFREE,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-06332

SOUTH CENTRAL REGIONAL JAIL, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are Officer Roop and the South Central Regional Jail’s (“Regional Jail
Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 16), PrimeCare Medical, Inc. and Nurse Shawanna’s
(“PrimeCare Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 19), and the Regional Jail Defendants’
subsequent Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute, (ECF No. 22), in which the PrimeCare
Defendants have moved to join, (ECF No. 24). By Standing Order entered January 4, 2016 and
filed in this case on July 14, 2016, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge
Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition
(“PF&R”). (ECF No. 4.) Magistrate Judge Tinsley entered his PF&R on January 16, 2018,
recommending that the Court grant the three motions to dismiss and the PrimeCare Medical
Defendants’ motion for joinder and dismiss this civil action with prejudice pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 41(b). (ECF No. 25.)
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 February 2, 2018. To date, no objections
have been filed.

The Court therefore ADOPTS the PF&R (ECF No. 25), and GRANTS

Defendants’ motions to dismiss, (ECF Nos. 16, 19, 22), and the PrimeCare Medical Defendants’
motion for joinder, (ECF No. 24). The Court further dismisses this matter WITH PREJUDICE
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 41(b) and DIRECTS the Clerk to
remove this action from the docket of the Court.
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:

February 6, 2018