Thorne v. Progressive Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, N.D. West Virginia
• Decided: August 24, 2020
• Docket: 1:17-cv-00202
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA TASHAWN THORNE, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17CV202 (Judge Keeley) PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY AND JOHN DOE Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 23], DENYING MOTION TO AMEND [DKT. NO. 21], DISMISSING THE CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE On November 29, 2017, the pro se plaintiff, Tashawn Thorne (“Thorne”), commenced a civil action in this Court by filing a complaint against the defendants, Progressive Insurance Company (“Progressive”) and John Doe (“Doe”) (Dkt. No. 1). The Court provided Thorne with a Notice of General Guidelines for Appearing Pro Se in Federal Court and a Notice of Deficient Pleading (Dkt. Nos. 2, 3), and referred the action to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Aloi (Dkt. No. 4). After Thorne was unable to provide necessary information about the defendants (Dkt. Nos. 10, 16), he moved to dismiss his case without prejudice, requesting the “option to pursue [it] at a later time if the need arises” (Dkt. No. 18). Magistrate Judge Aloi granted the motion and dismissed the case without prejudice on March 28, 2018 (Dkt. No. 19). More than two years later, on July 20, 2020, Thorne moved to amend, add, or correct his complaint (Dkt. No. 21). Attached to his motion was a request for instructions for pro se prisoners filing a complaint pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) (Dkt. THORNE V. PROGRESSIVE, ET. AL. 1:17CV202 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 23], DENYING MOTION TO AMEND [DKT. NO. 21], DISMISSING THE CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE No. 21-1). The Court again referred the action to the Magistrate Judge Aloi, who, on July 23, 2020, entered a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court deny Thorne’s motion to amend, dismiss the case without prejudice, and direct the Clerk of Court to provide Thorne with Instructions for Pro Se Prisoners Filing a Complaint Pursuant to the FTCA to allow him to re-file his action as a new case (Dkt. No. 23). In his R&R, Magistrate Judge Aloi explained that his March 28, 2018 order granting Thorne’s motion for voluntary dismissal should have taken the form of an R&R. Id. at 3. Also in the R&R, Magistrate Judge Aloi specifically warned Thorne that failing to object would result in a waiver of his right to appeal the ruling. Id. at 3. According to a return receipt filed with the Court, Thorne received the R&R on August 3, 2020 (Dkt. No. 16). To date, Thorne has not objected to the R&R.1 Therefore, following a careful review of the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety (Dkt. No. 23), DENIES the motion to amend (Dkt. No. 21), and DISMISSES the case without prejudice. 1 The failure to object to the R&R waives the appellate rights and also relieves the Court of any obligation to conduct a de novo review of the issues presented. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-152 (1985); Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 199-200 (4 th Cir. 1997). 2 THORNE V. PROGRESSIVE, ET. AL. 1:17CV202 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 23], DENYING MOTION TO AMEND [DKT. NO. 21], DISMISSING THE CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE It is so ORDERED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order and the Court’s Instructions for Pro Se Prisoners Filing a Complaint Pursuant to the FCTA to the pro se plaintiff by certified mail, return receipt requested, to his last known address. The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the Court’s active docket. Dated: August 24, 2020. /s/ Irene M. Keeley IRENE M. KEELEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE