Pertuset v. Clifford, No. 2:2016cv10554 - Document 15 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 14 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; denying as moot plaintiff's 5 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, 11 Motion to Dismiss and 12 Motion to Revive Suit Against Respondent. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 6/6/2017. (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 TROY PERTUSET, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-010554 MARGARET CLIFFORD, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 5), Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11), and Plaintiff’s Motion to Revive Suit Against Respondent (ECF No. 12). By Standing Order entered January 4, 2016, and filed in this case on November 4, 2016, 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. 14) on May 8, 2017, recommending that this Court deny as moot Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Revive Suit Against Respondent. 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 25, 2017. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R (ECF No. 14), DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 5), Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11), and Plaintiff’s Motion to Revive Suit Against Respondent (ECF No. 12). 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 June 6, 2016
]]>
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.
