Crangle et al v. State of West Virginia et al, No. 2:2015cv14564 - Document 20 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 19 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; dismissing without prejudice the 1 Complaint; and directing this matter removed from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 6/14/2017. (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 JAMES CRANGLE, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-14564 STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint. (ECF No. 1.) By Standing Order filed in this case on November 2, 2015, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition (“PF&R”). (ECF No. 4.) Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed a PF&R on May 24, 2017, recommending that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (ECF No. 19.) 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). Objections to the PF&R in this case were due on June 12, 2017. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 19), DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Complaint, (ECF No. 1), and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this matter from the Court’s 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 14, 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.