Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-40
08-23-2018
MEGAN EILEEN DUNIGAN, Plaintiff, v. LT. BRIAN PURKEY, et al., Defendants.
(BAILEY)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On this day, the above-styled matter came before this Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Aloi [Doc. 81]. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Aloi for submission of a proposed report and a recommendation ("R&R"). Magistrate Judge Aloi filed his R&R on July 25, 2018, wherein he recommends the plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), this Court is required to make a de novo review of those portions of the magistrate judge's findings to which objection is made. However, 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). In addition, failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the right to appeal this Court's Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Snyder v. Ridenour , 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce , 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). Here, objections to Magistrate Judge Aloi's R&R were due within fourteen (14) days of receipt, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The docket indicates the plaintiff accepted service on August 3, 2018 [Doc. 82]. To date, plaintiff has not filed any objections. Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for clear error.
Conclusion
Upon careful review of the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 81] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. Accordingly, this Court ORDERS that defendants Morgan, Givens, Zummo, Moore, Patrick, Frederick, Purkey, Root, and Silvester's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 42] be GRANTED; defendants Fazzini and Quinn's Motion to Dismiss, construed as a Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 60] be GRANTED; defendant Wilfong's Motion to Dismiss, construed as a Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 61] be GRANTED; defendant Rogers' Motion to Dismiss, construed as a Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 62] be GRANTED; and that Plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. 1] be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the defendants and to STRIKE this case from the active docket of this Court.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to any counsel of record and to mail a copy to the pro se plaintiff.
DATED: August 23, 2018.
/s/ _________
JOHN PRESTON BAILEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE