From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Halstead v. WV Div. of Corr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY
Aug 21, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-cv-00169 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 21, 2020)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-cv-00169

08-21-2020

BEN HALSTEAD, Plaintiff, v. WV DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION and PRIME CARE MEDICAL and BRITNAY FOSTER and MIKE FRANCIS, Defendants.


ORDER

Pending is the Plaintiff Ben Halstead's Complaint [Doc. 2], filed March 11, 2019. 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 March 13, 2020 [Doc. 6]. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

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 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 May 29, 2020. No objections were filed.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 6], DISMISSES the Complaint without prejudice [Doc. 2], and DISMISSES the matter.

The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party herein.

ENTERED: August 21, 2020

/s/_________

Frank W. Volk

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Halstead v. WV Div. of Corr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY
Aug 21, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-cv-00169 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 21, 2020)
Case details for

Halstead v. WV Div. of Corr.

Case Details

Full title:BEN HALSTEAD, Plaintiff, v. WV DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

Date published: Aug 21, 2020

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-cv-00169 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 21, 2020)