From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gravely v. S. Cent. Reg'l Jail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Apr 22, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-cv-00337 (S.D.W. Va. Apr. 22, 2020)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-cv-00337

04-22-2020

JAMES D. GRAVELY, Plaintiff, v. SOUTH CENTRAL REGIONAL JAIL, Defendant.


ORDER

Petitioner James D. Gravely, in addition to several prisoners, filed a Complaint concerning various conditions of confinement. (ECF No. 2.) By Standing Order entered on January 4, 2016, and filed in this case on April 30, 2019, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition ("PF&R"). (ECF No. 3.) On February 13, 2020, Magistrate Judge Tinsley entered his PF&R, recommending that the Court dismiss this matter for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 6.)

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 findings or recommendation 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 the 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, the 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 April 20, 2020. (ECF No. 6.) To date, Petitioner has failed to submit any objections in response to the PF&R, thus constituting a waiver of de novo review and Petitioner's right to appeal this Court's order.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 6), and DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court further 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: April 22, 2020

/s/_________

THOMAS E. JOHNSTON, CHIEF JUDGE


Summaries of

Gravely v. S. Cent. Reg'l Jail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Apr 22, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-cv-00337 (S.D.W. Va. Apr. 22, 2020)
Case details for

Gravely v. S. Cent. Reg'l Jail

Case Details

Full title:JAMES D. GRAVELY, Plaintiff, v. SOUTH CENTRAL REGIONAL JAIL, Defendant.

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

Date published: Apr 22, 2020

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-cv-00337 (S.D.W. Va. Apr. 22, 2020)