Hardman v. South Central Regional Jail et al, No. 2:2021cv00442 - Document 15 (S.D.W. Va. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER The Court ADOPTS the 11 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge and DISMISSES Defendants South Central Regional Jail and John Does 1-4 as defendants; this matter remains referred to Magistrate Judge Tinsley. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 4/5/2022. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (ts)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hardman v. South Central Regional Jail et al Doc. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION JONATHAN LEIGH HARDMAN, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-cv-00442 SOUTH CENTRAL REGIONAL JAIL, et al., Defendants. ORDER Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 9.) By Standing Order entered in this case on August 8, 2021, 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. 4.) Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on March 18, 2022, recommending that this Court dismiss Defendant South Central Regional Jail as a defendant in this action as it is not a suable entity under the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Eleventh Amendment. (ECF No. 11.) Additionally, Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended dismissing Defendants John Does 1-4, as they are not state actors and, thus, not persons with respect to § 1983. (Id.) 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 and Plaintiff’s right to appeal this Court’s 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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 April 4, 2022. (ECF No. 11.) 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. 11), and DISMISSES Defendants South Central Regional Jail and John Does 1-4 as defendants. This matter remains referred to Magistrate Judge 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 April 5, 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.
