Opinion
Civil Action 3:22-CV-49
06-09-2022
ROBIN M. ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. UNKNOWN NAMED SPECIAL AGENT, MICHAEL NORDWAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, DENNIS MCDONOUGH, KENNETH ALLENSWORTH, THOMAS MICHAEL, BRITTANY STRITE, BERKELEY COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, CURTIS KELLER, WILLIE JOHNSON, AJ WEIDMAN, RYAN KOLB, CITY HOSPITAL, INC., WVU MEDICINE BERKELEY MEDICAL CENTER, RYAN LIVENGOOD, GWEN HENRY, DR. RAJA MOGALLAPU, VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEMS INC. VALLEY HEALTH INTERNAL MEDICINE, JEAN BRIDWELL, EASTRIDGE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER INC., DR. JAFAR ALMASHAT, MD., DR. ABDUL HAMEED, and DR. FEZAN RIZVI, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
GINA M. GROH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Now before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble. ECF No. 10. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Trumble for a preliminary review to determine whether the Plaintiff's Complaint set forth any viable claims. ECF No. 4. On May 9, 2022, Magistrate Judge Trumble issued his R&R, recommending that the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 2] be denied and her complaint be dismissed without prejudice. ECF No. 10.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court is required to conduct a de novo review of those portions of the magistrate judge's findings to which objection is made. However, this Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge to which no objection is made. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file objections in a timely manner constitutes a waiver of de novo review and 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). Moreover, “[w]hen a party does make objections, but these objections are so general or conclusory that they fail to direct the district court to any specific error by the magistrate judge, de novo review is unnecessary.” Green v. Rubenstein, 644 F.Supp.2d 723, 730 (S.D. W.Va. 2009) (citing Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982)).
Objections to Magistrate Judge Trumble's R&R were due within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the same. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The R&R was mailed to the Plaintiff by certified mail, return receipt requested, and service was accepted on May 12, 2022. ECF No. 11. To date, the Plaintiff has not filed objections to the R&R. Thus, this Court will review the R&R for clear error.
In his R&R, Magistrate Judge Trumble found that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims, she has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and has presented frivolous claims. Upon careful review, and finding no error of fact or law, the Court ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Trumble's Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 10] is ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated therein.
The Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED [ECF No. 2] and her Complaint [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to STRIKE this case from the Court's active docket.
The Clerk is further DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff by certified mail, return receipt requested, at her last known address as reflected on the docket sheet.