From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Maynard v. Huttonsville Corr. Ctr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA MARTINSBURG
Jul 5, 2018
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:17-CV-99 (N.D.W. Va. Jul. 5, 2018)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:17-CV-99

07-05-2018

JEREMIAH JAMES MAYNARD, Plaintiff, v. HUTTONSVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Defendant.


(GROH)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Trumble for submission of a proposed R&R. Magistrate Judge Trumble issued his R&R [ECF No. 9] on May 9, 2018. In the R&R, he recommends that the Plaintiff's complaint [ECF No. 1] be dismissed without prejudice. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court is required to make a de novo review of those portions of the magistrate judge's findings to which objection is made. However, 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 of a Plaintiffs right to appeal this Court's Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984).

Objections to Magistrate Judge Trumble's R&R were due within fourteen plus three days of the Plaintiff being served with a copy of the same. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Service was accepted by the pro se Plaintiff on May 14, 2018. ECF No. 10. Therefore, after allowing additional time for transit in the mail, the Court finds that the deadline for the Plaintiff to submit objections to the R&R has passed. No objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for clear error.

Upon careful review of the R&R, it is the opinion of this Court that Magistrate Judge Trumble's Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 9] should be, and is hereby, ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated therein.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Complaint [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is therefore DENIED AS MOOT [ECF No. 2], and this matter is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Court's active docket.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to the Plaintiff by certified mail, return receipt requested, at his last known address as reflected on the docket sheet.

DATED: July 5, 2018

/s/_________

GINA M. GROH

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Maynard v. Huttonsville Corr. Ctr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA MARTINSBURG
Jul 5, 2018
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:17-CV-99 (N.D.W. Va. Jul. 5, 2018)
Case details for

Maynard v. Huttonsville Corr. Ctr.

Case Details

Full title:JEREMIAH JAMES MAYNARD, Plaintiff, v. HUTTONSVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA MARTINSBURG

Date published: Jul 5, 2018

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:17-CV-99 (N.D.W. Va. Jul. 5, 2018)