Orme v. Charleston Police Department et al, No. 2:2022cv00092 - Document 24 (S.D.W. Va. 2022)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting 4 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge Tinsley; dismissing the Charleston Police Department and the Charleston Courthouse as defendants in this matter; directing this case be referred anew to Magistrate Judge Tinsley for further proceedings. Signed by Senior Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 9/21/2022. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (klc)

Download PDF
Orme v. Charleston Police Department et al Doc. 24 Case 2:22-cv-00092 Document 24 Filed 09/21/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 81 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON DEREK MATTHEW ORME, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-00092 CHARLESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF CHARLESTON, CHARLESTON COURTHOUSE, and OFFICER J.L. OWENS, Charleston Police Department, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending is Plaintiff Derek Matthew Orme’s complaint (ECF 2) alleging claims against the defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed February 22, 2022. This action was previously referred to the Honorable Dwane L. Tinsley, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R (ECF 4) on May 11, 2022, wherein he recommended that the court dismiss the Charleston Police Department and the “Charleston Courthouse” as defendants in this matter. By separate order, Magistrate Judge Tinsley granted Mr. Orme’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:22-cv-00092 Document 24 Filed 09/21/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 82 Costs and ordered service of process on the City of Charleston and Officer Owens. See ECF 5. The court need not 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. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”) (emphasis added). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Petitioner’s right to appeal the court’s order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. De Leon-Ramirez, 925 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 2019) (parties may not typically “appeal a magistrate judge’s findings that were not objected to below, as § 636(b) doesn’t require de novo review absent objection.”); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989). Further, the court need not conduct 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.” Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). case were due on May 31, 2022. Orpiano v. Objections in this No objections were filed. 2 Case 2:22-cv-00092 Document 24 Filed 09/21/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 83 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the findings made in the PF&R (ECF 4) are ADOPTED by the court and incorporated herein. It is further ORDERED that the Charleston Police Department and the Charleston Courthouse are DISMISSED as defendants in this matter and this case be REFERRED ANEW to Magistrate Judge Tinsley for further proceedings. The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this memorandum opinion and order to all counsel of record and any unrepresented parties. ENTER: September 21, 2022 3

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.