Opinion
Civil 1:24-CV-26
05-24-2024
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Plaintiff, v. EMMANUEL JONES, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 17] AND REMANDING ACTION
THOMAS S. KLEEH, CHIEF JUDGE
On March 5, 2024, pro se Defendant Emmanuel Jones (“Defendant”) filed a “Removal of West Virginia State Case to the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of West Virginia” [ECF No. 1]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the local rules, the Court referred the action to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Aloi (the “Magistrate Judge”) [ECF No. 6]. On May 1, 2024, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court dismiss the claims without prejudice; that Plaintiff's motion to dismiss [ECF No. 10] be granted; that Defendant's motions to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF Nos. 4,5] be denied; and that the Court remand the action to state court. ECF No. 17.
The R&R informed the parties that they had fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the R&R to file “specific written objections identifying the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis for such objection.” ECF No. 17. It further warned them that the “[f]ailure to timely file written objections . . . shall constitute a waiver of de novo review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit Court of Appeals.” Id. Defendant accepted service of the R&R on May 7, 2024. ECF No. 19. To date, no objections have been filed.
When reviewing a magistrate judge's R&R, the Court must review de novo only the portions to which an objection has been timely made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Otherwise, “the Court may adopt, without explanation, any of the magistrate judge's recommendations” to which there are no objections. Dellarcirprete v. Gutierrez, 479 F.Supp.2d 600, 603-04 (N.D. W.Va. 2007) (citing Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983)). Courts will uphold portions of a recommendation to which no objection has been made unless they are clearly erroneous. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
Because no party has objected, the Court is under no obligation to conduct a de novo review. Accordingly, the Court reviewed the R&R for clear error. Upon careful review, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS the R&R [ECF No. 17]. Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Remand is GRANTED [ECF No. 10] and the claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Defendant's motions to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF Nos. 4,5] are also DENIED. This action is REMANDED to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and shall be STRICKEN from the Court's active docket. Any other pending motions in this action shall be TERMINATED.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to counsel of record; the Circuit Clerk of Monongalia County, West Virginia; and the pro se Defendant by certified mail, return receipt requested.