Howard v. MOCC Staff Member Daniel Hahn et al, No. 2:2013cv11006 - Document 158 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 157 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; and denying plaintiff's 148 Motion for Injunction. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 5/31/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION JOSEPH EUGENE HOWARD, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-11006 MOCC STAFF MEMBER DANIEL HAHN, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Joseph Eugene Howard’s Motion for Injunction (ECF No. 148). By Standing Order entered April 8, 2013, and filed in this case on May 14, 2013, 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 (ECF No. 157) on May 4, 2017, recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunction. 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. § 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 May 22, 2017. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R (ECF No. 157) and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunction (ECF No. 148). 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 31, 2017
]]>
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.
