Thompson v. Wilshire

Opinion

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

CHARLESTON DIVISION

MAURICE-EDWARD: THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-cv-00268

S. WILSHIRE,

Defendant.

ORDER

This action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On February 12, 2025, Magistrate Judge Tinsley submitted his Proposed Findings & Recommendations [ECF No. 17] (“PF&R”) and recommended that the court dismiss without prejudice Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No.12]. Neither party timely filed objections to the PF&R nor sought an extension of time. A district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This court is not, however, 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). Because the parties have not filed objections in this case, the court adopts and incorporates herein the PF&R and orders judgment consistent therewith. The court DISMISSES without prejudice this matter from the docket. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: March 4, 2025

/ ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE