CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-02902
This action was referred to the Honorable Dwane L. Tinsley, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission to this court of proposed findings and recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On April 10, 2015, the Magistrate Judge submitted findings and recommended that the court dismiss the plaintiff's complaint [Docket 2] for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and lack of personal jurisdiction, deny the plaintiff's Letter-Form Motion for Protective Order [Docket 4], and deny the plaintiff's Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs [Docket 1] yet waive the applicable filing fee. (See Proposed Findings and Recommendation [Docket 5], at 3-4). The Magistrate Judge also recommended that I "warn the plaintiff that the continued filing of frivolous actions or engaging in abusive conduct in this court may result in the imposition of sanctions and/or filing restrictions." (Id. at 4).
A district court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This court is not, however, 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).
The pro se plaintiff has not filed objections. On April 15, 2015 [Docket 6] and June 11, 2015 [Docket 7], the plaintiff filed additional documentation in support of her complaint—namely, claims of liens and quitclaim deeds. Although I give liberal construction to pro se filings, see Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978), this additional documentation plainly fails to constitute objections to the Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommendation.
Therefore, the court accepts and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and orders judgment consistent with the findings and recommendations. The court DISMISSES the plaintiff's complaint [Docket 2], DENIES the plaintiff's Letter-Form Motion for Protective Order [Docket 4], and DENIES the plaintiff's Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs [Docket 1] yet waives the applicable filing fee. I further warn the plaintiff that continuing to file frivolous actions or other abusive conduct may result in sanctions and/or restrictions on filing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1) (stating that the court may impose sanctions on a party that violated Rule 11(b) by filing frivolous claims); see, e.g., Brock v. Angelone, 105 F.3d 952, 954 (4th Cir. 1997) (per curiam).
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.
ENTER: July 13, 2015
JOSEPH R. GOODWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE