Blake et al v. Rubenstein et al, No. 2:2008cv00906 - Document 182 (S.D.W. Va. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the recommendation contained in the 180 Proposed Findings and Recommendation; and denying plaintiff Lennis Angel's 59 REQUEST for Entry of Default. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 8/25/2009. (cc: plaintiff Lennis Angel; attys; any unrepresented party) (taq) (Modified text to conform to filed document on 8/26/2009) (skh).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION EUGENE BLAKE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08-cv-00906 JAMES RUBENSTEIN, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Lennis Angel s Request for Entry of Default [Docket 59]. By Standing Order entered on August 1, 2006, and filed in this case on July 9, 2008, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mary E. Stanley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (PF&R). On August 27, 2008, the case was reassigned to the undersigned District Judge and referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of a PF&R. Magistrate Judge VanDervort filed his PF&R [Docket 180] addressing Plaintiff Angel s Request for Entry of Default [Docket 59] on August 5, 2009, recommending that the Court DENY the request. 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. ยง 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir.1989); and 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). In this case, objections to the PF&R were due by August 21, 2009. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly the Court ADOPTS the recommendation contained in the PF&R [Docket 180], and DENIES Plaintiff Angel s Request for Entry of Default [Docket 59]. 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: August 25, 2009 _________________________________________ THOMAS E. JOHNSTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -2-
]]>
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.
