Simmerman v. Mapother & Mapother PSC et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 14 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge and ORDERS that Plaintiff's 6 Motion for Injunctive Relief be DENIED and Plaintiff's 2 Complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice; the Court ORDERS that this matter be removed from its docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 8/30/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BECKLEY DIVISION

JOHN KEITH SIMMERMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11-cv-00268

MAPOTHER & MAPOTHER PSC, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On April 21, 2011, Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed his Application to Proceed Without
Prepayment of Fees (Document 1) and his Complaint alleging violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq.) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C.
§ 1681, et seq.) (Document 2). By Standing Order (Document 4) entered on April 21, 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).
Injunctive Relief (Document 6).

On January 11, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for

On February 15, 2012, the Magistrate Judge submitted

Proposed Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) (Document 14), which recommended that
the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief, dismiss the case without prejudice for
failure to prosecute, and remove the 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 in this case were due by August 27, 2012. To date, no party has 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, and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (Document 6) be
DENIED and Plaintiff’s Complaint (Document 2) be DISMISSED without prejudice. The
Court further ORDERS that this matter be removed from its docket.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to
any unrepresented party.
ENTER: August 30, 2012

2