Worley v. Ewing

Opinion

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

CHARLESTON DIVISION

RONNIE WORLEY

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-cv-00543

DAVID EWING, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

This action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwayne Tinsley for submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Magistrate Judge Tinsley submitted his Proposed Findings & Recommendations [ECF No. 69] (“PF&R”) and recommended that the court DENY Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Injunction [ECF No. 66] and GRANT Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 56] and DISMISS this action from the docket of the court. 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. , 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 DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Injunction [ECF No. 66], GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 56], and DISMISSES 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 30, 2022

ee STATES DISTRICT JUDGE