Mabry v. Jividen et al, No. 2:2019cv00424 - Document 9 (S.D.W. Va. 2022)

Court Description: DISMISSAL ORDER adopting the 8 Proposed Findings and Recommendations, and dismisses this action without prejudice; the Clerk is directed to remove this action from the Court's active docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 6/13/2022. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (lca)

Download PDF
Mabry v. Jividen et al Doc. 9 Case 2:19-cv-00424 Document 9 Filed 06/13/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 48 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION DAVID L. MABRY, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-cv-00424 BETSY JIVIDEN, et al., Defendants. DISMISSAL ORDER Pending before the Court is Plaintiff David Mabry’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint. (ECF No. 4.) By Standing Order entered in this case on May 31, 2019, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Court Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on May 3, 2022, recommending that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim. (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 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 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:19-cv-00424 Document 9 Filed 06/13/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 49 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 May 20, 2022. (See ECF No. 8.) To date, Plaintiff has failed to submit any objection 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 WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Clerk is further DIRECTED to remove this action from the Court’s active 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: June 13, 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.