Collins v. Amjad

Opinion

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

CLAYTON STEVEN COLLINS, Plaintiff, Vv. CIVIL ACTION No. 5:24-CV-105 Judge Bailey DR. AYNE AMJAD, Medical Director of Correctional Healthcare, DR. JAMES — BEANE, In charge of Medical Dept., St. Marys Prison, CARLA DEEM, RN, MELINDA GOFF, and JAMES HERSELL Ill, Defendants. ORDER The above-styled matter came before this Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Mazzone [Doc. 43]. Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Mazzone for submission of a proposed report and a recommendation (“R&R”). Magistrate Judge Mazzone filed his R&R on September 20, 2024, wherein he recommends that the pending Motions to Dismiss [Docs. 20, 24, & 36] be granted and that the case be dismissed with prejudice. This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge’s report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, absent prompt objection by a dissatisfied party, it appears that Congress did not intend for the district court to review the factual and legal 1.

conclusions of the magistrate judge. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Additionally, any party who fails to file timely, written objections to the magistrate judge’s report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to raise those objections at the appellate court level. United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984). No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.‘ A de novo review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge’s report accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Mazzone’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. 43] is ADOPTED. Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss [Docs. 20, 24, & 36] are GRANTED and the above-styled case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is DIRECTED TO STRIKE the above-styled case from the active docket of this Court. It is so ORDERED. The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to any counsel of record and to mail a copy to the pro se plaintiff.

‘ Pursuant to the R&R, “Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Recommendation, any party may file with the Clerk of this Court, specific written objections, identifying the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis of such objection.” See [Doc. 43 at 12]. Service of the R&R was accepted on September 23, 2024. See [Doc. 44]. September 23, 2024, was twenty-four (24) days ago. Thus, this Court did not just wait the standard fourteen (14) days—this Court waited an additional ten (10) days before ruling on the pending R&R.

DATED: October 17, 2024.

PRESTON BAILEY U ES DISTRICT JUDGE

.