Opinion
Civil Action 2:20-cv-00353
04-11-2022
SCOTTY LEVON MARSHALL Plaintiff, v. SOUTH CENTRAL REGIONAL JAIL, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
JOSEPH R. GOODWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley on May 22, 2020, for submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On March 14, 2022, Magistrate Judge Tinsley submitted his Proposed Findings & Recommendations [ECF No. 6] (“PF&R”) and recommended that I dismiss Plaintiff's complaint [ECF No. 2] and this civil action pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B). Objections to Magistrate Judge Tinsley's PF&R were due no later than March 31, 2022.
The docket reflects that the PF&R mailed to Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable on October 4, 2021, but this does not excuse the failure to file objections by the deadline. “A pro se party must advise the clerk promptly of any changes in name, address, and telephone number.” L.R. Civ. P. 83.5.
Neither party timely filed objections to the PF&R nor sought an extension of time. A district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This court is not, however, 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).
Because the parties have not filed objections in this case, the court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the PF&R and orders judgment consistent therewith. Plaintiffs complaint [ECF No. 2] is DISMISSED pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B). I order this case to be REMOVED from the docket of the Court. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.