Broadnax v. Shamsten et al

Filing 33

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: the Court adopts the 30 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge, and Dismisses Plaintiff's Complaint and Directs the Clerk to remove this matter from the Court's docket., Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 9/1/2010. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (cds)

Broadnax v. Shamsten et al

Doc. 33

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION ETHELBERT BROADNAX, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL SHAMSTEN, et al., Defendants. ETHELBERT BROADNAX Plaintiff, v. D.J. BAILEY, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Ethelbert Broadnax's Amended Complaint [Case No. 5:08-cv-01398; Docket 13] and Complaint [Case No. 5:09-cv-01090; Docket 2]. By Order filed in these cases on May 4, 2010, these actions were referred to United States Magistrate Mary E. Stanley for submission of proposed findings and recommendation (PF&R). Magistrate Judge Stanley submitted a PF&R in each of these cases on June 24, 2010 [Dockets 30 and 18, respectively]. In each PF&R, the magistrate judge recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's complaints due to failure to prosecute. The Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-cv-01090 CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:08-cv-01398

Dockets.Justia.com

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). In addition, failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and Petitioner's right to appeal this Court's order. See Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). Here, objections to Magistrate Judge Stanley's PF&R were due by July 12, 2010, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Plaintiff has not filed objections to either of the Proposed Findings & Recommendation in these cases. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Proposed Findings & Recommendation [Dockets 30 and 18, respectively], ORDERS Plaintiff's complaints [Dockets 13 and 2, respectively] DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove these matters from the Court's docket. A separate Judgment Order shall be separately entered by the Court. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: September 1, 2010