Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19CV108
03-27-2020
JOSHUA J. MINIX Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL SOURCE, LLC, ET AL., Defendants.
( ) ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 87] AND DISMISSING U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
On or about April 9, 2019, the pro se plaintiff, Joshua J. Minix ("Minix"), commenced this action by filing a complaint in the Circuit Court of Preston County, West Virginia (Dkt. No. 1, at 9). On May 15, 2019, the defendant, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, filed a notice of removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441, and 1446 (Dkt. No. 1). The Court then provided Minix with a Notice of General Guidelines for Appearing Pro Se in Federal Court (Dkt. No. 2), and referred the action to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Aloi for initial screening and a report and recommendation ("R&R") regarding any motions filed in accordance with LR PL P 2 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (Dkt. No. 16).
On December 5, 2019, the defendant, U.S. Department of Education ("DOE"), filed a motion to dismiss for lack of proper service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) (Dkt. No. 78). Magistrate Judge Aloi issued a notice pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) to Minix on December 6, 2019, informing him of his right to file a response to the motion to dismiss within twenty-one (21) days following receipt of the notice (Dkt. No. 79). A return receipt for the Roseboro notice filed with the Court showed delivery of the notice to Minix's address on December 11, 2019 (Dkt. No. 80).
On February 11, 2020, Magistrate Judge Aloi recommended that the Court grant the DOE's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 87). The R&R specifically warned Minix that failing to object to the recommendation would result in the waiver of his right to appeal the ruling. According to a return receipt filed with the Court, the R&R was delivered to Minix's address on March 9, 2020 (Dkt. No. 92). To date, Minix has not filed objections to the R&R.
The failure to object to the R&R not only waives the appellate rights in this matter, but also relieves the Court of any obligation to conduct a de novo review of the issues presented. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-153 (1985); Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1997). --------
Following careful review of the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety (Dkt. No. 87), GRANTS the DOE's motion to dismiss for the reasons stated in the R&R, and DISMISSES the DOE without prejudice.
It is so ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to transmit a copy of this order to the pro se plaintiff by certified mail, return receipt requested, to his last known address and to counsel of record by electronic means.
Dated: March 27, 2020.
/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE