Wilson v. Turner et al, No. 2:2018cv01502 - Document 20 (S.D.W. Va. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER The Court ADOPTS the 19 Proposed Findings and Recommendations, and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant's 13 Motion to Dismiss; the matter remains referred to Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 1/3/2020. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (ts)

Download PDF
Wilson v. Turner et al Doc. 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION LEON WILSON, JR., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-cv-01502 C.O. TURNER, et al., Defendants. ORDER Pending before the Court is Defendant C.O. Turner’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 13.) By standing order entered on January 4, 2016, and filed in this case on December 10, 2018, (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 Judge Tinsley entered his PF&R on December 5, 2019, recommending this Court deny without prejudice Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss because Plaintiff has been granted leave to amend his Complaint. (ECF No. 19 at 4.) This Court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, factual or legal conclusions contained within the PF&R to which no objections were 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 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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 December 23, 2019. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 19), and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 13). The matter remains referred to Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley. 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 January 3, 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.