Washington v. Gillespie et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 5 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; DISMISSES the 2 Complaint under Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's 1 Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs; the Court further dismisses this matter and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this action from the docket of the Court. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 7/24/2018. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)

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

JOSEPHINE LOUELLA WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-10191

MELISSA GILLESPIE, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights, (ECF No. 2), and
Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (“IFP Application”), (ECF No. 1).
By Standing Order filed in this case on October 28, 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 July 2,
2018, recommending that the Court dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(h)(3) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and deny as moot Plaintiff’s IFP Application.
(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 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 July 19, 2018. To date, no objections
have been filed. The Court therefore ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 5), DISMISSES the
Complaint under Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, (ECF No. 2), and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s IFP Application, (ECF No. 1).
The Court further dismisses this matter 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:

July 24, 2018