Badger v. South Central Regional Jail et al, No. 2:2019cv00623 - Document 7 (S.D.W. Va. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER adopting the 6 Proposed Findings and Recommendations. The court dismisses this consolidated action. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 8/31/2021. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (lca)

Download PDF
Badger v. South Central Regional Jail et al Doc. 7 Case 2:19-cv-00623 Document 7 Filed 08/31/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION FRED L. BADGER, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-cv-00653 SOUTH CENTRAL REGIONAL JAIL, et al., Defendants. and FRED L. BADGER, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-cv-00623 SOUTH CENTRAL REGIONAL JAIL, et al., Defendants. ORDER Pending before the Court is Defendant Superintendent Craig Roberts’s Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 10.) By standing order entered on January 4, 2016, and filed in this case on September 11, 2019, 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 July 19, 2021, recommending this Court grant the Motion to Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:19-cv-00623 Document 7 Filed 08/31/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 29 Dismiss and otherwise dismiss this consolidated action for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 14.) 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 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 August 5, 2021. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 14), and GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 10). The Court further DISMISSES this consolidated action for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 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 August 31, 2021

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.