Hewett v. McDonald ( 2020 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA MARTINSBURG HELEN HEWETT, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:20-CV-185 (GROH) JOYCE MCDONALD, LISA GOSHORN and MICHELE MICHAEL, Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Now before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble. ECF No. 8. Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), 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. 7. On November 4, 2020, Magistrate Judge Trumble issued his R&R, recommending that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice. ECF No. 8. Magistrate Judge Trumble further recommends that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 6] be denied as moot. 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, on November 4, 2020. ECF No. 8. Service was accepted at Plaintiffs address on November 9, 2020. ECF No. 10. 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 Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Upon careful review, and finding no error of fact or law, the Court ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Trumble’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 8] is ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated therein. The Plaintiff's Complaint [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 6] is DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk 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. DATED: December 3, 2020 7 ys Load. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE