Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-CV-139
02-26-2020
ANDREW W. CASTANEIRA, Plaintiff, v. S. ANDREW ARNOLD, 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 James P. Mazzone [Doc. 24]. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Mazzone for submission of a proposed report and recommendation ("R&R"). Magistrate Judge Mazzone filed his R&R on January 2, 2020, wherein he recommends this Court find that plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and, thus, dismiss this civil action pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A.
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 Mazzone's R&R were due within fourteen (14) days of service, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The docket reflects that service was accepted on January 6, 2020 [Doc. 25]. However, this Court granted plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections [Doc. 26], and allowed plaintiff until February 21, 2020, to file his objections. See [Doc. 27]. Nonetheless, despite this extension of time, no objections have been filed to date. Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for clear error.
Upon careful review of the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 24] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. Accordingly, this Court finds plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. 1] fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and therefore hereby DISMISSES this civil action pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A. This Court further ORDERS that this matter be STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of defendants.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to any counsel of record herein and to mail a copy to the pro se plaintiff.
DATED: February 26, 2020.
/s/_________
JOHN PRESTON BAILEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE