Woody v. South Central Regional Jail Authority et al, No. 2:2018cv01362 - Document 81 (S.D.W. Va. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The 65 Proposed Findings and Recommendation is ADOPTED; Plaintiff's claims against the WVDCR, the RJA, Officer Jaburs Terry, Officer Christopher Martin, Officer Estep are DISMISSED; the claim against Officer Vanda le concerning the loss of Plaintiff's property is DISMISSED; this matter is RE-REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Tinsley for further pretrial management and submission of PF&Rs. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 8/18/2022. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (kew)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Woody v. South Central Regional Jail Authority et al Doc. 81 Case 2:18-cv-01362 Document 81 Filed 08/18/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 469 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION PERCY RYSHAWN WOODY, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-cv-01362 SOUTH CENTRAL REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Percy Ryshawn Woody’s (“Plaintiff” or “Woody”) Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 64.) By Standing Order entered on January 4, 2016 and in this case on October 18, 2018, 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. 3.) Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on July 12, 2022, recommending that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“WVDCR”), Regional Jail Authority (“RJA”), Officer Jaburs Terry, Officer Christopher Martin, Officer Estep, and Officer Vandale—only with regard to Plaintiff’s claim against Officer Vandale concerning the loss of Plaintiff’s property—and leave this matter referred to Magistrate Judge Tinsley for additional proceedings concerning Plaintiff’s remaining claims against Officers Cook, Vandale, Vense, and Toney and Nurses Maleigha and Norvell. Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:18-cv-01362 Document 81 Filed 08/18/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 470 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 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. 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 were due on July 29, 2022. (ECF No. 65.) Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the PF&R, thereby waiving de novo review of Magistrate Judge Tinsley’s PF&R. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 65), and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims against the WVDCR, the RJA, Officer Jaburs Terry, Officer Christopher Martin, Officer Estep, and Officer Vandale—only with respect to Plaintiff’s claim against Officer Vandale concerning the loss of Plaintiff’s property. The Court RE-REFERS this matter to Magistrate Judge Tinsley for further pretrial management and submission of PF&Rs. 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: August 18, 2022
]]>
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.
