Kokinda v. Foster

Opinion

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

MARTINSBURG DIVISION

JASON STEVEN KOKINDA,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:21-cv-00154

COPRL. T.H. FOSTER, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Jason Steven Kokinda’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to amend. (ECF No. 107.) By Order entered in this case on January 27, 2022, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition (“PF&R”). (ECF No. 10.) Magistrate Judge Eifert filed her PF&R on May 10, 2024, recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff’s motion to amend. (ECF No. 122.) The Court hereby ADOPTS the PF&R and DENIES the motion. This Court is not required to 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. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). In addition, this Court need not conduct a de novo review when a party “makes general 1 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 to the PF&R were due on May 28, 2024. (ECF No. 122.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed any objections.! Plaintiff has thus waived his right to de novo review. The Court therefore ADOPTS the PF&R, (id.), and DENIES Plaintiff's motion to amend, (ECF No. 107). IT IS SO ORDERED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: July 24, 2024

&

June 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an extension of time to file his objections. (ECF No. 124.) Seeing how this motion was filed several weeks after any objections were due, the Court DENIES that motion as MOOT.