Boykin v. Belcher et al, No. 2:2020cv00560 - Document 23 (S.D.W. Va. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER adopting the 22 Proposed Findings and Recommendations and dismissing without prejudice the 2 Complaint; the Clerk is directed to remove this case from the active docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 6/26/2023. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (lca)

Download PDF
Boykin v. Belcher et al Doc. 23 Case 2:20-cv-00560 Document 23 Filed 06/26/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 86 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION JOHNNY RAY BOYKIN, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00560 ZACHARY BELCHER, et al., Defendants. ORDER Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF No. 2.) By standing order entered in this case on August 26, 2020, (ECF No. 3), this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and recommendations for disposition (“PF&R”). On June 5, 2023, Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed a PF&R recommending that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint, without prejudice. (ECF No. 22.) No objections were filed to the PF&R. The Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusion of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the PF&R 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 right to appeal the 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, the Court need not conduct a de novo review when a party “makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the Court Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-00560 Document 23 Filed 06/26/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 87 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 June 22, 2023. (ECF No. 22.) To date, no party has submitted any objections in response to the PF&R, thus constituting a waiver of de novo review and the right to appeal the Court’s order. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 22), and DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiff’s Complaint, (ECF No. 2). The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the Court’s active 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: June 26, 2023

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.