Wade v. Huttonsville Correctional Center, No. 5:2014cv00144 - Document 7 (N.D.W. Va. 2014)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 6 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by the Magistrate Judge; directing that this case be TRANSFERRED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, Elkins Division, for further proceedings, and directing this case removed from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 10/30/2014. (cc: plaintiff; attys; any unrepresented party) (taq)[Transferred from West Virginia Southern on 10/31/2014.]

Download PDF
Wade v. Huttonsville Correctional Center Doc. 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION MATTHEW STUART WADE, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-25164 HUTTONSVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint [ECF 1]. By Standing Order entered May 7, 2014, and filed in this case on August 29, 2014, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R [ECF 6] on September 30, 2014, recommending that this Court find that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) the interests of justice weigh in favor transferring this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, Elkins Division. 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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 17, 2014. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 6], ORDERS that this case be TRANSFERRED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, Elkins Division for further proceedings, and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the Court’s docket. 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: 2 October 30, 2014

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.