Lane v. McCoy, No. 5:2019cv00132 - Document 36 (S.D.W. Va. 2020)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 32 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, DENIES the 21 Motion for Summary Judgment as moot, DISMISSES the 5 Amended Complaint, and DISMISSES this matter. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 6/23/2020. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (msa)

Download PDF
Lane v. McCoy Doc. 36 Case 5:19-cv-00132 Document 36 Filed 06/23/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 114 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY EUGENE LANE Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-cv-00132 OFFICER JAMES MCCOY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending is whether Plaintiff failed to prosecute this civil action. This action was previously referred to United States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R on April 21, 2020. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court dismiss the amended complaint without prejudice, deny the pending motion for summary judgment as moot, and dismiss the matter from the Court’s 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. De Leon-Ramirez, 925 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 2019) (noting parties may not typically “appeal a Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:19-cv-00132 Document 36 Filed 06/23/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 115 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 May 8, 2020. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 32], DENIES the Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 21] as moot, DISMISSES the Amended Complaint [Doc. 5], 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. ENTERED: June 23, 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.