Monti v. Summit Health Services Inc.

Opinion

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

CHARLESTON DIVISION

JOHN MONTI,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-cv-00371

SUMMIT HEALTH SERVICES INC.,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On June 6, 2025, the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a letter-form application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs (Document 1) and a Petition to Enjoin (Document 2). By Administrative Order (Document 3) entered on June 9, 2025, the matter was referred to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission to this Court of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On June 10, 2025, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order (Document 4) directing the Plaintiff to amend his pleadings by June 30, 2025, as to how his constitution rights were violated. The Plaintiff was advised therein that failure to comply would result in a recommendation of dismissal of the matter without prejudice. The Plaintiff did not file amended pleadings or otherwise respond to the June 10, 2025, Order. Subsequently, on July 15, 2025, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 5) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny the Plaintiff’s 1 letter-form application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs (Document 1) and dismiss this matter from the Court’s docket without prejudice. Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by August 1, 2025. Neither party has timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation. The 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 and a party’s right to appeal this Court’s Order. 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). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS that the Plaintiff's letter-form application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs (Document 1) be DENIED, and that the matter be DISMISSED without prejudice and REMOVED from the Court’s docket. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: August 12, 2025 Dire. Benger’ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA