Lewis v. United States of America

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 3 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; denying as moot the 2 Letter-Form Motion for Emergency Injunction; and dismissing this case from the docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 1/11/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)

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

EDWARD LEE LEWIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-07366

ANTHONY LEONARD,
Administrator, and
JOHN and JANE DOES,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Edward Lee Lewis’s Letter-Form Motion for Emergency
Injunction (ECF No. 2). By Order entered August 9, 2016, this action was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a
recommendation (PF&R) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed
his PF&R (ECF No. 3) on December 14, 2016, recommending that this Court DENY the LetterForm Motion for Emergency Injunction as moot and DISMISS the action.
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). In addition, this Court need

not conduct a de novo review when a party “makes general and conclusory objections that do not
direct the Court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.”
Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Objections to the PF&R in this case were
due on January 3, 2017. To date, no objections have been filed.1
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R (ECF No. 3), DENIES the Letter-Form
Motion for Emergency Injunction (ECF No. 2) as moot, and DISMISSES this case from the
docket. A separate Judgment Order will enter this day implementing the rulings contained herein.
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:

1

January 11, 2017

The Court notes that the copy of the PF&R that was mailed to Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable because it was
mailed to his address at South Central Regional Jail, where he was no longer an inmate. While it is unknown if
Plaintiff is aware of the filing of the PF&R, it was Plaintiff’s responsibility to update the Clerk’s Office on his change
of address, which he failed to do. In any event, Plaintiff’s claims are moot as a result of his release, so he will not
suffer prejudice due to his non-receipt of the PF&R.

2