Collins et al v. South Central Regional Jail et al

Filing 6

ORDER adopting the 5 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; DISMISSES plaintiff's 2 Complaint for failure to state a claim; DENIES plaintiff's 1 Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs; and DISMISSES this action from the docket of the Court. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 7/23/2018. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)

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

JEDEDIAH A. COLLINS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-08015

SOUTH CENTRAL REGIONAL JAIL, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Complaint, (ECF No. 2), and Application to
Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, (ECF No. 1). By Standing Order entered on
January 4, 2016, and filed in this case on August 23, 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 filed his PF&R on June 25,
2018, recommending that this Court find that Plaintiff’s Complaint, (ECF No. 2), fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted, deny as moot Plaintiff’s application to proceed without
prepayment of fees and costs, (ECF No. 1), and dismiss this civil action pursuant to the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A, and the dictates of Twombly and Iqbal. (ECF No. 5.)
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 July 12, 2018. (ECF No. 5.) To date,
Plaintiff has failed to submit any objections in response to the PF&R, thus constituting a waiver of
de novo review and Plaintiff’s right to appeal this Court’s order.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 5), DISMISSES Plaintiff’s
Complaint for failure to state a claim, (ECF No. 2), DENIES Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed
without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, (ECF No. 1), and DISMISSES 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:

July 23, 2018