Dolin v. State of West Virginia
Filing
6
ORDER The Court ADOPTS the 5 Proposed Findings and Recommendations and DISMISSES this action; directing the Clerk to remove this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 12/11/2020. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (ts)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
KENNA DOLIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-04323
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA,
Defendant.
ORDER
By standing order entered January 4, 2016, and filed in this case on November 15, 2017,
(ECF No. 3), 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
Tinsley filed his PF&R on November 11, 2020, recommending this Court either find that Plaintiff
Kenna Dolin’s (“Plaintiff”) claims are not ripe for adjudication and that this Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction or abstain from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.
(ECF No. 8).
This 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 PF&R 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 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 by November 7, 2020. (ECF No. 8.) 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. 8), and DISMISSES this action as this
Court FINDS Plaintiff’s claims are not ripe for adjudication and that, therefore, this Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction. The Court further 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:
December 11, 2020
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?