From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

King v. PEM Properties

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Nov 19, 2019
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-09876 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 19, 2019)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-09876

11-19-2019

DONALD W. KING, Plaintiff, v. PEM PROPERTIES, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Donald W. King's ("Plaintiff") Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 4.) By standing order entered on January 4, 2016, and filed in this case on October 20, 2016, (ECF No. 3), this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition ("PF&R"). Magistrate Judge Tinsley entered his PF&R on September 17, 2019, recommending this Court find Plaintiff's Amended Complaint "does not state a cause of action for any of the statutes under which he purports to bring his claims" and dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (ECF No. 5 at 1, 8.)

This Court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, factual or legal conclusions contained within the PF&R to which no objections were addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and Plaintiff'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 on October 4, 2019. To date, Plaintiff has failed to submit any objection, thus constituting a waiver of de novo review and Plaintiff's right to appeal this Court's order. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 5), and DISMISSES this matter WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is DIRECTED to REMOVE this case from the active docket of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

ENTER: November 19, 2019

/s/_________

THOMAS E. JOHNSTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

King v. PEM Properties

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Nov 19, 2019
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-09876 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 19, 2019)
Case details for

King v. PEM Properties

Case Details

Full title:DONALD W. KING, Plaintiff, v. PEM PROPERTIES, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Nov 19, 2019

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-09876 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 19, 2019)

Citing Cases

Valentine v. South Carolina

However, this Court is in agreement with several other district courts in this Circuit that disabled…

Estate of Valentine v. State

However, this Court is in agreement with several other district courts in this Circuit that disabled…