Dolin v. State of West Virginia, No. 2:2017cv04323 - Document 6 (S.D.W. Va. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER The Court ADOPTS the 5 Proposed Findings and Recommendations and DISMISSES this action; directing the Clerk to remove this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 12/11/2020. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (ts)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dolin v. State of West Virginia Doc. 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION KENNA DOLIN, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-04323 STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Defendant. ORDER By standing order entered January 4, 2016, and filed in this case on November 15, 2017, (ECF No. 3), this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition (“PF&R”). Magistrate Tinsley filed his PF&R on November 11, 2020, recommending this Court either find that Plaintiff Kenna Dolin’s (“Plaintiff”) claims are not ripe for adjudication and that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction or abstain from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. (ECF No. 8). This 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 PF&R 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 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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 by November 7, 2020. (ECF No. 8.) To date, Plaintiff has failed to submit any objections in response to the PF&R, thus constituting a waiver of de novo review and Plaintiff’s right to appeal this Court’s order. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 8), and DISMISSES this action as this Court FINDS Plaintiff’s claims are not ripe for adjudication and that, therefore, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The Court further 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: December 11, 2020
]]>
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.
