Harper v. Barbagallo et al, No. 2:2014cv07529 - Document 11 (S.D.W. Va. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 9 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge, and denying Plaintiff's 6 for Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 8/25/2014. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party; plaintiff) (tmh)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION CEDEAL HARPER, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-07529 C.O. JOSEPH BARBAGALLO, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court are Plaintiff s motions for a preliminary injunction and restraining order [ECF 6]. By Standing Order entered on April 8, 2013, and filed in this case on February 7, 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 on August 5, 2014, recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff s motions for a preliminary injunction and restraining order. 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 Plaintiff s right to appeal this Court s Order. 28 U.S.C. ยง 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 August 22, 2014. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly the Court ADOPTS the PF&R and DENIES Plaintiff s motions for a preliminary injunction and restraining order [ECF 6]. 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 August 25, 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.
