Massie v. The United States of America
Filing
35
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 33 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge, and ORDERS that the 28 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by United States of America be GRANTED and Plaintiff's 1 Complaint be DISMISSED and REMOVED from the docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 7/31/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BECKLEY DIVISION
DEBRA MASSIE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11-cv-00218
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
On April 4, 2011, Plaintiff, by counsel, filed a Complaint (Document 1) claiming an
entitlement to monetary damages pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)
and 2671, et seq., for medical malpractice under the West Virginia Medical Professional
Liability Act, W. Va. Code §§ 55-7B-1, et seq. By Order (Document 22) entered on September
23, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s former lawyers’ Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, and
Plaintiff began acting pro se. Thus, pursuant to the Standing Order (Document 3) entered on
April 4, 2011, this action was referred to the Honorable R. Clarke VanDervort, United States
Magistrate Judge, for submission to this Court of proposed findings of fact and recommendation
for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
On April 9, 2012, the United States filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Document 28)
along with their supportive memorandum (Document 29). Although given ample time, Plaintiff
failed to file a response to the Defendant’s motion. (See Document 30). On July 10, 2012, the
Magistrate Judge submitted Proposed Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) (Document 33),
wherein it is recommended that this Court grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment,
dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, and remove this matter from the Court’s docket.
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 Petitioner'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 were due no later than July 27, 2012. To date, neither party filed objections.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the Proposed Findings and
Recommendation (Document 33), and ORDERS that the United States’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (Document 28) be GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Complaint (Document 1) be
DISMISSED and REMOVED from the docket.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to
any unrepresented party.
ENTER:
2
July 31, 2012
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?