Edmonds v. Step et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 9 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge and FINDS that Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case; denying as moot the 1 Application by Travis Mark Edmonds to Proceed without Pr epayment of Fees and Costs; DISMISSES this civil action WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and directing the Clerk to remove this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 7/12/2018. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)

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

TRAVIS MARK EDMONDS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-01953

STATE TROOPER STEP, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of
Fees and Costs (“IFP Application”), (ECF No. 1), and Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (ECF
No. 2). By Standing Order filed in this case on March 21, 2017, this action was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a
recommendation for disposition (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on June 21,
2018, recommending that this Court find that Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this civil action,
dismiss this case without prejudice, and deny as moot Plaintiff’s IFP Application. (ECF No. 9.)
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 9, 2018. To date, no objections have
been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 9), and FINDS that Plaintiff
has failed to prosecute this case.

The Court further DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s IFP

Application, (ECF No. 2), DISMISSES this civil action WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and
DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this matter from the Court’s docket.
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:

2

July 12, 2018