Kiser v. West Virginia Division of Corrections et al, No. 2:2021cv00334 - Document 9 (S.D.W. Va. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER The Court ADOPTS the 8 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge and DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 12/8/2022. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (mk)

Download PDF
Kiser v. West Virginia Division of Corrections et al Doc. 9 Case 2:21-cv-00334 Document 9 Filed 12/08/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 32 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION JEREMY L. KISER, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-cv-00334 WV DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. ORDER Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF No. 2.) By Standing Order entered in this Case on June 11, 2021, (ECF No. 4), this action was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on November 15, 2022, recommending that this Court dismiss the action for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No 8.) This Court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, factual or legal conclusions contained within the PF&R to which no objections were addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and Plaintiff’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 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:21-cv-00334 Document 9 Filed 12/08/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 33 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 December 2, 2022. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 8), and DISMISSES the action WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 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: December 8, 2022

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.