From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kuhn v. Justice

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Mar 3, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-01147 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 3, 2020)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-01147

03-03-2020

MICHAEL KUHN, Plaintiff, v. JIM JUSTICE, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Governor Jim Justice, Benita Murphy, and Jim Rubenstein. (ECF No. 2). By Standing Order entered on January 4, 2016, and filed in this case on February 2, 2017, 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.) Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on February 12, 2020, recommending that this Court dismiss this matter for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 4.)

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). 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, 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 March 2, 2020. (ECF No. 4.) To date, Plaintiff has failed to submit any objections 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), DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint, (ECF No. 2), and DISMISSES this action from the docket of the Court.

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: March 3, 2020

/s/_________

THOMAS E. JOHNSTON, CHIEF JUDGE


Summaries of

Kuhn v. Justice

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Mar 3, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-01147 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 3, 2020)
Case details for

Kuhn v. Justice

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL KUHN, Plaintiff, v. JIM JUSTICE, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Mar 3, 2020

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-01147 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 3, 2020)