Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:20-CV-225
04-28-2021
BRENDA PEREZ-DIAZ, Plaintiff, v. MR. HANO and DR. RING, Defendants.
(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 the Local Rules, this civil action was referred to Judge Trumble for submission of a proposed R&R. Magistrate Judge Trumble issued an R&R [ECF No. 12] on January 14, 2021. In the R&R, Judge Trumble 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 Plaintiff'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).
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 January 28, 2021. ECF No. 13. 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. 12] should be, and is hereby, ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated therein. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to DENY any outstanding motions as MOOT.
The Clerk of Court is further DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to the Plaintiff by certified mail, return receipt requested, at her last known address as reflected on the docket sheet.
DATED: April 28, 2021
/s/_________
GINA M. GROH
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE