Winning v. H.C.C. Med. Unit Staff

JOHN PRESTON BAILEY

On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David J. Joel [Doc. 16]. By Standing Order, entered on March 24, 2000, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Joel for submission of a proposed report and recommendation ("R&R"). Upon his initial review, Magistrate Judge Joel filed his R&R on March 7, 2012. In that filing, the magistrate judge recommends that this Court dismiss with prejudice Winning's § 1983 Complaint [Doc. 1] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), this Court is required to make a de novo review of those portions of the magistrate judge's findings to which objection is made. However, 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). In addition, failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the petitioner's right to appeal this Court's Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). Here, objections to Magistrate Judge Joel's R&R were due by March 26, 2012. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for clear error.

Upon careful review of the record, it is the opinion of this Court that the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. 16] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated therein. Accordingly, Winning's § 1983 Complaint [Doc. 1] is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the defendants and strike this case from the active docket of this Court.

As a final matter, upon an independent review of the record, this Court hereby DENIES a certificate of appealability, finding that Winning has failed to make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

It is so ORDERED.

The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to mail a copy to the pro se plaintiff.

____________

JOHN PRESTON BAILEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE