Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:07-cv-00627.
September 9, 2008
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [Docket 1], Motion for Injunctive Relief [Docket 4], and Motion to Withdraw and Dismiss Complaint [Docket 8]. By Standing Order entered on August 1, 2006, and filed in this case on October 9, 2007, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (PF R). Magistrate Judge VanDervort filed his PF R [Docket 9] on August 18, 2008, recommending that this Court GRANT Plaintiff's motion to withdraw his complaint and DENY AS MOOT his application to proceed in forma pauperis and motion for injunctive relief.
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 Petitioner's 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). 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 were due in this case by September 5, 2008. To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly the Court ADOPTS the PF R [Docket 9] in its entirety, GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Withdraw and Dismiss Complaint [Docket 8], and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [Docket 1], Motion for Injunctive Relief [Docket 4]. A separate Judgment Order will enter this day implementing the rulings contained herein.