Gravely v. City of Charleston

Full title: RICHARD GRAVELY, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CHARLESTON, et al., Defendants

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION

Date published: Jan 23, 2014

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-04209 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 23, 2014)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-04209

01-23-2014

RICHARD GRAVELY, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CHARLESTON, et al., Defendants

THOMAS E. JOHNSTON

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Richard Gravely's pro se Complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [ECF 2]. By Standing Order entered September 2, 2010 and filed in this case on March 6, 2013, this action was referred to former United States Magistrate Judge Mary E. Stanley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation ("PF&R"). Referral of this action was later transferred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert. Magistrate Judge Eifert filed her PF&R [ECF 21] on October 1, 2013, recommending that this Court deny Defendants' motion for summary judgment [ECF 15] on the grounds that it is premature.

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 on October 18, 2013. To date, no objections have been filed.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 21] and DENIES Defendants' motion for summary judgment WITHOUT PREJUDICE [ECF 15]. The Court ORDERS that this case remain referred to Magistrate Judge Eifert for the purpose of conducting all remaining proceedings in accordance with the Court's September 2, 2010 Standing Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.

__________

THOMAS E. JOHNSTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE