From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Miller v. Terry

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Dec 2, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-04224 (S.D.W. Va. Dec. 2, 2020)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-04224

12-02-2020

ANDREW MILLER, Plaintiff, v. RALPH TERRY, Defendant.


ORDER

By standing order entered on January 4, 2016, and filed in this case on October 27, 2017, (ECF No. 3), this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition ("PF&R"). Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on October 20, 2020 (ECF No. 4), recommending this Court dismiss the Complaint (ECF No. 2) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and deny the Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (ECF No. 1.)

This 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 PF&R to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and Plaintiff's right to appeal this Court's order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). In addition, this Court need not conduct a 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 to the PF&R in this case were due on November 6, 2020. (ECF No. 4.) To date, Plaintiff Andrew Miller has failed to submit any objection in response to the PF&R, thus constituting a waiver of de novo review and Plaintiff's right to appeal this Court's order.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 4), DENIES Plaintiff's Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (ECF No. 1), and DISMISSES this action. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this matter from the Court's docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.

ENTER: December 2, 2020

/s/_________

THOMAS E. JOHNSTON, CHIEF JUDGE


Summaries of

Miller v. Terry

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Dec 2, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-04224 (S.D.W. Va. Dec. 2, 2020)
Case details for

Miller v. Terry

Case Details

Full title:ANDREW MILLER, Plaintiff, v. RALPH TERRY, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION

Date published: Dec 2, 2020

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-04224 (S.D.W. Va. Dec. 2, 2020)

Citing Cases

Nelson v. Waller

al court which have been dismissed as being frivolous or malicious or for failure to state a claim upon which…

Miller v. Superintendent

federal court which have been dismissed as being frivolous or malicious or for failure to state a claim upon…