Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-cv-00634
09-03-2020
BRENDA LAWSON, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF DUNBAR, Defendant.
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Complaint. (ECF No. 2.) By Standing Order entered on January 4, 2016, and filed in this case on September 4, 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 July 15, 2020, Magistrate Judge Tinsley entered his PF&R, recommending that this Court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (ECF No. 4.)
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 August 3, 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), and DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE 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: September 3, 2020
/s/_________
THOMAS E. JOHNSTON, CHIEF JUDGE