Clark-Armstead v. State of West Virginia Elected Officials

Filing 8

ORDER The Court ADOPTS the 6 Proposed Findings & Recommendation, DISMISSES Plaintiff's 1 Petition for failure to prosecute, and DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE from the docket of the Court. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 11/22/2019. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (kew)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
BRENDA CECELIA CLARK-ARMSTEAD,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-cv-00380

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA ELECTED OFFICIALS,
Defendant.

ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Petition for Modification. (ECF No. 1.) By
Standing Order entered on January 4, 2016, and filed in this case on March 1, 2018, 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. 2.) Magistrate Judge
Tinsley filed his PF&R on October 29, 2019, recommending that this Court dismiss this action for
failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 6.)
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 November 12, 2019. (ECF No. 6.) 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. 6), DISMISSES Plaintiff’s
Petition for failure to prosecute, (ECF No. 1), and DISMISSES this action WITHOUT
PREJUDICE 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:

November 22, 2019