Childress v. Regional Jail Authority et al, No. 2:2019cv00714 - Document 9 (S.D.W. Va. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 8 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, denying Plaintiff's 1 Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, dismissing Plaintiff's 2 Complaint, and this action; the Clerk shall remove this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 9/20/2022. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (btm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Childress v. Regional Jail Authority et al Doc. 9 Case 2:19-cv-00714 Document 9 Filed 09/21/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 37 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION JONATHAN KEITH CHILDRESS, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-cv-00714 REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF No. 2.) By Standing Order entered in this case on October 2, 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 filed his PF&R on August 29, 2022, recommending that this Court dismiss this Complaint and this civil action, as well as deny Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees or Costs, (ECF No.1), (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 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). Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:19-cv-00714 Document 9 Filed 09/21/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 38 Objections to the PF&R were due by September 15, 2022. (ECF No. 8.) To date, Plaintiff has failed to submit any objections 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), DENYS Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, (ECF No. 1), and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint, (ECF No. 2), and this action. The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this matter from the Court’s 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: September 20, 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.
