Davis et al v. the Owner of the Southern Regional Jail in Beckley, No. 5:2018cv01486 - Document 10 (S.D.W. Va. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 8 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, DISMISSES the 1 Complaint without prejudice, and DISMISSES the matter. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 7/28/2020. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (msa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Davis et al v. the Owner of the Southern Regional Jail in Beckley Doc. 10 Case 5:18-cv-01486 Document 10 Filed 07/28/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 35 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY JOVON DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-cv-01486 OWNER OF THE SOUTHERN REGIONAL JAIL, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending is whether Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action. This action was previously referred to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R on December 3, 2019. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court dismiss the Complaint without prejudice and remove this matter from the docket. 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) (emphasis added) (“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.”). 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. Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:18-cv-01486 Document 10 Filed 07/28/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 36 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.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Objections in this case were due on December 20, 2019. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 8], DISMISSES the Complaint [Doc. 1] without prejudice, and DISMISSES the matter. The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party herein. ENTERED: July 28, 2020 2
]]>
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.
