Lynch v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 5:2017cv01685 - Document 21 (S.D.W. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: adopting the 20 Proposed Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge; granting the Defendant Bank of America's 17 Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Comply with Court Order Regarding Discovery; dismissing this matter with prejudice and removing it from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 1/10/2018. (cert. cc: attys; any unrepresented party; Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn) (btm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lynch v. Bank of America, N.A. Doc. 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION CARLA ANN LYNCH, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-cv-01685 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., and DOES 1-10, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On February 3, 2017, the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court of Raleigh County, West Virginia. On March 9, 2017, the Defendant Bank of America removed the matter to this Court and, subsequently, on November 15, 2017, filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Comply with Court Order Regarding Discovery (Document 17). By Standing Order (Document 2) entered on March 9, 2017, this action was referred to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission to this Court of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On December 18, 2017, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 20) wherein it is recommended that the Defendant Bank of America’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Comply with Court Order Regarding Discovery (Document 17) 1 Dockets.Justia.com be granted and that this matter be removed from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by January 5, 2018. Neither party has timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation. The 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 a party’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). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS that the Defendant Bank of America’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Comply with Court Order Regarding Discovery (Document 17) be GRANTED and that this matter be DISMISSED with prejudice and REMOVED from the Court’s docket. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 January 10, 2018
]]>
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.
