Portee v. United States Department of Agriculture et al, No. 2:2015cv13928 - Document 17 (S.D.W. Va. 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 9 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; and denying plaintiff's 5 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 9/15/2016. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION ANDRE JAVION PORTEE Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-13928 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. (ECF No. 5.) On October 13, 2015, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and recommendations (“PF&R”). (ECF No. 4.) Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed an amended PF&R on July 14, 2016, recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 9.) 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 a party’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). Objections to the PF&R in this case were due on August 1, 2016. To date, no objections have been filed.1 Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 9), and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, (ECF No. 5). 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: September 15, 2016 As detailed in the PF&R, Plaintiff’s seeks review of a final agency decision rendered by a division of the United States Department of Agriculture, but his original complaint does not include a complete copy of that decision. In response, Plaintiff filed, on July 20, 2016, a copy of the complete agency decision in question. (ECF No. 10.) As this additional filing does not challenge Magistrate Judge Tinsley’s analysis with respect to Plaintiff’s entitlement to default judgment, the Court does not construe it as an objection to the PF&R. 1

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.