Adkins v. WV Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al, No. 5:2019cv00167 - Document 10 (S.D.W. Va. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER adopting the 6 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge, dismissing the Complaint without prejudice, and dismissing the matter. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 8/21/2020. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (slr)

Download PDF
Adkins v. WV Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al Doc. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY CORY ADKINS, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-cv-00167 WV DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION and PRIME CARE MEDICAL and BRITNAY FOSTER and MIKE FRANCIS, Respondents. ORDER Pending is the Plaintiff Cory Adkins’ Complaint [Doc. 2], filed March 11, 2019. 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 March 13, 2020 [Doc. 6]. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 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 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 May 29, 2020. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 6], DISMISSES the Complaint without prejudice [Doc. 2], 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: August 21, 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.