Glass v. Frances et al, No. 5:2019cv00305 - Document 29 (S.D.W. Va. 2020)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing that the Court ADOPTS the 28 PF&R, GRANTS the Defendants' 13 Motion to Dismiss, and ORDERS the matter stricken from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 6/22/2020. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (btm)

Download PDF
Glass v. Frances et al Doc. 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY RICKY GLASS, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-cv-00305 MIKE FRANCES and CODY BLEVINS and BETSY JIVIDEN, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending is the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint [Doc. 13]. 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 2, 2019. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court grant the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and remove this matter from the Court’s active 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) (parties may not typically “appeal a Dockets.Justia.com 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 19, 2019. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 28], GRANTS the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 13], and ORDERS the matter stricken from the Court’s docket. The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party herein. ENTERED: June 22, 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.