Lane v. West Virginia Dept. of Correctional Rehabilitation et al

Filing 5

ORDER adopting the 3 Proposed Findings and Recommendations, dismissing without prejudice Mr. Lane's 1 Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for his failure to prosecute, and removing this matter from the docket. Signed by Chief Judge Frank W. Volk on 9/24/2024. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (btm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BECKLEY
CHARLES LANE,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-cv-00226

WEST VIRGINIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONAL
REHABILITATION, and U.S. Marshals Service
3-Defendants,
Defendants.
ORDER
Pending is Plaintiff Charles Lane’s pro se Complaint [Doc. 1], filed May 16, 2022.
This action was previously referred to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate
Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge
Aboulhosn filed his PF&R on August 9, 2024. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the
Court dismiss Mr. Lane’s Complaint without prejudice given his failure to prosecute this civil
action and remove this matter from the docket.
The Court need not 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. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the
report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” (emphasis
added)). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Petitioner’s
right to appeal the Court’s order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. De LeonRamirez, 925 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 2019) (Parties may not typically “appeal a magistrate judge’s

findings that were not objected to below, as § 636(b) doesn’t require de novo review absent
objection.”); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989). Further, the Court need not
conduct 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 in this case were due on August 26, 2024.
No objections were filed. 1
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 3], DISMISSES WITHOUT
PREJUDICE Mr. Lane’s Complaint [Doc. 1] pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)
for his failure to prosecute, and REMOVES this matter from the docket.
The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record
and any unrepresented party.
ENTER: September 24, 2024

1

On August 9, 2024, a copy of the PF&R was mailed to Mr. Lane at the Southern Regional
Jail but was returned as undeliverable on August 19, 2024. [ECF 4]. The PF&R was not resent
because no alternative address for Mr. Lane was available. Inasmuch as Mr. Lane has failed to
keep the Court apprised of his current address as required by Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.5,
the matter is ripe for adjudication.
2