Woody v. South Central Regional Jail Authority et al, No. 2:2018cv01362 - Document 88 (S.D.W. Va. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 65 Proposed Findings and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge and ordering that the due process claims against Defendants Vense, White, and Thompson are DISMISSED. The Court RE-REFERS this matter to Magistrate Judge Tinsley for further pretrial management and submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 11/3/2022. (cc: counsel of record and any unrepresented party) (arb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Woody v. South Central Regional Jail Authority et al Doc. 88 Case 2:18-cv-01362 Document 88 Filed 11/03/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 485 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 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. 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 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:18-cv-01362 Document 88 Filed 11/03/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 486 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 did not file any objections to the PF&R, thereby waiving de novo review of Magistrate Judge Tinsley’s PF&R. On August 18, 2022, the Court adopted Magistrate Judge Tinsley’s PF&R. (ECF No. 81.) In the order the Court dismissed “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.” (Id. at 2). However, the PF&R also found that Plaintiff’s due process claims against Officers Vense, White, and Thompson “fail[ed] to state a plausible claim for relief.” (ECF No. 65 at 11-12.) The PF&R did not formally recommend dismissing the claims though. Thus, they were not officially dismissed by the Court’s August 18, 2022, order. Therefore, the Court now ADOPTS the PF&R’s findings and ORDERS that the due process claims against Defendants Vense, White, and Thompson are DISMISSED. 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: November 3, 2022 Case 2:18-cv-01362 Document 88 Filed 11/03/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 487
]]>
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.
