Dement v. Ballard

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 4 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge and FINDS that Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case; DISMISSES this civil action WITHOUT PREJUDICE and DIRECTS 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)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION KEITH ALLEN DEMENT, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-02711 DAVID BALLARD, Warden, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) By Standing Order filed in this case on May 4, 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 and dismiss this case without prejudice. (ECF No. 4.) 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. 4), and FINDS that Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case. The Court further 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?