Opinion
CIVIL 1:23-CV-102
01-26-2024
EMMANUEL JONES, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 7]
THOMAS S. KLEEH, CHIEF JUDGE
On December 15, 2023, the plaintiff, Emmanuel Jones (“Jones” or “Plaintiff”), filed a pleading seeking to remove several juvenile abuse and neglect proceedings from the Circuit Court of Monongalia County, West Virginia to this Court [ECF No. 1]. Plaintiff further filed a pro se motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the local rules, the Court referred the action to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Aloi (the “Magistrate Judge”) [ECF No. 6]. On December 18, 2023, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court dismiss the Complaint without prejudice and remand the action to state court. ECF No. 7.
The R&R informed the parties that they had fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the R&R to file “specific written objections identifying the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis for such objection.” It further warned them that the “[f]ailure to timely file written objections . . . shall constitute a waiver of de novo review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit Court of Appeals.” Plaintiff accepted service of the R&R on December 26, 2023 [ECF No. 9]. To date, no objections have been filed.
When reviewing a magistrate judge's R&R, the Court must review de novo only the portions to which an objection has been timely made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Otherwise, “the Court may adopt, without explanation, any of the magistrate judge's recommendations” to which there are no objections. Dellarcirprete v. Gutierrez, 479 F.Supp.2d 600, 603-04 (N.D. W.Va. 2007) (citing Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983)). Courts will uphold portions of a recommendation to which no objection has been made unless they are clearly erroneous. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
Because no party has objected, the Court is under no obligation to conduct a de novo review. Accordingly, the Court reviewed the R&R for clear error. Upon careful review, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS the R&R [ECF No. 7]. This action is REMANDED to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and shall be STRICKEN from the Court's active docket. All pending motions in this action shall be TERMINATED.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to counsel of record; the Circuit Clerk of Monongalia County, West Virginia; and the pro se Plaintiff by certified mail, return receipt requested.