Brode v. Mon Health Care, Inc.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CLARKSBURG

SCOTT BRODE,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL NO. 1:20-CV-253 (KLEEH) MON HEALTH CARE, INC.,

Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 86] AND DISMISSING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT AGAINST STEVE CARTER [ECF NO. 56]

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the local rules, the Court referred Plaintiff’s Motion for Civil Contempt Against Steve Carter [ECF No. 56] to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Aloi (the “Magistrate Judge”) for issuance of a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). On December 21, 2021, the Magistrate Judge entered an R&R recommending that the Motion be dismissed as moot [ECF No. 86]. The R&R also 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 of such objection.” It further warned them that the “[f]ailure to timely file objections . . . will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of this Court based upon such Report and ORDERA NADD ODPITSIMNIGS SRIENPGO RATS AMNODO TR EPCLOAMIMNETNIDFAFT’ISO NM O[TEICOFN NFOO.R 8 6] CIVIL CONTEMPT AGAINST STEVE CARTER [ECF NO. 56] Recommendation.” 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. 86]. Plaintiff’s Motion for Civil Contempt Against Steve Carter is DISMISSED AS MOOT [ECF No. 56]. It is so ORDERED. The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to counsel of record.

DATED: May 31, 2022 BRODE V. MON HEALTH CARE, INC. 1:20-CV-253 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 86] AND DISMISSING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT AGAINST STEVE CARTER [ECF NO. 56]

Tom 8 Klute THOMAS S. KLEEH, CHIEF JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA