Lynch v. Bank of America, N.A.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: adopting the 20 Proposed Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge; granting the Defendant Bank of America's 17 Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Comply with Court Order Regarding Discovery; dismissing this matter with prejudice and removing it from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 1/10/2018. (cert. cc: attys; any unrepresented party; Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn) (btm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CARLA ANN LYNCH,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-cv-01685
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
and DOES 1-10,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On February 3, 2017, the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court
of Raleigh County, West Virginia. On March 9, 2017, the Defendant Bank of America removed
the matter to this Court and, subsequently, on November 15, 2017, filed a Motion to Dismiss
Complaint for Failure to Comply with Court Order Regarding Discovery (Document 17).
By Standing Order (Document 2) entered on March 9, 2017, this action was referred to the
Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, 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. On
December 18, 2017, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation
(Document 20) wherein it is recommended that the Defendant Bank of America’s Motion to
Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Comply with Court Order Regarding Discovery (Document 17)
be granted and that this matter be removed from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate
Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by January 5, 2018.
Neither party has timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and
Recommendation. 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 a party’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).
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 the Defendant Bank of America’s Motion to Dismiss
Complaint for Failure to Comply with Court Order Regarding Discovery (Document 17) be
GRANTED and that this matter be DISMISSED with prejudice and REMOVED from the
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge
Aboulhosn, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.
January 10, 2018
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?