Opinion
Civil Action 5:22-cv-00445
10-11-2024
LACOSTA STEELE, Plaintiff, v. SGT. MINOR, C/O KITTLE, CO GRANT, ADMIN STAFF, MEDICAL STAFF, and ROOM/CELL PLACEMENT WARDEN, Defendants.
ORDER
Frank W. Volk, Chief United States District Judge
Pending is Plaintiff Lacosta Steele's Letter-Form Motion to Dismiss and Request for Return of Filing Fee [Doc. 48], filed September 6, 2024. This action was previously referred to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R on September 17, 2024. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court grant Plaintiff's Motion, deny as moot the Defendants' pending Motions to Dismiss [Docs. 31, 34], and dismiss this action.
The Court need not 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. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” (emphasis added)). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Plaintiff's right to appeal the Court's order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. De Leon-Ramirez, 925 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 2019) (Parties may not typically “appeal a magistrate judge's findings that were not objected to below, as § 636(b) doesn't require de novo review absent objection.”); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989). Further, the Court need not conduct 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 in this case were due on October 4, 2024. No objections were filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 50], DENIES AS MOOT Defendant CO Grant and Sgt. Minor's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 31], DENIES AS MOOT Defendant Warden's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 34], and ORDERS the Plaintiff's Final Amended Complaint [Doc. 20] be DISMISSED without prejudice and that this matter be REMOVED from the Court's docket.
Lastly, considering the Plaintiff's representations that she was unaware she was initiating both an individual action and a class action, her pro se status, and her lack of legal knowledge, the Court ORDERS the Plaintiff's request for the return of her partial filing fee ($302.10) be GRANTED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to return the Plaintiff's partial filing fee, and further DIRECTS that no additional payments of the previously ordered $350.00 filing fee be collected in this matter.
As of the date of this writing, the Plaintiff has made six payments towards the $350.00 filing fee, totaling $302.10. [See Docs. 40, 42, 44, 45, 47, 49].
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party.