Harper v. Blagg et al, No. 2:2013cv19796 - Document 73 (S.D.W. Va. 2014)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION ORDER Adopting 26 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; denying plaintiff's 20 & 21 Motions for Default Judgment by the Court pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2), FRCivP; Pursuant to the Courts 3/18/2014, Order, this case remains referred to Magistrate Judge Tinsley for further proceedings Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 5/15/2014. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION CEDEAL HARPER, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-19796 MICHAEL BLAGG, et al. Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiffs pro se Complaint (ECF 2, 3) filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation ( PF&R ). On September 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment [ECF 20, 21], and Defendants filed a response in opposition (ECF 22). Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on September 25, 2013, recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff s motion for default judgment [ECF 26]. 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 15, 2013. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 26] and DENIES Plaintiff s motion for default judgment [ECF 20, 21.]. Pursuant to the Court s March 18, 2014, Order, this case remains referred to Magistrate Judge Tinsley for further proceedings. 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 May 15, 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.