United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
T. Copenhaver, Jr., Judge
action was previously referred to the Honorable Dwane L.
Tinsley, United States Magistrate Judge for submission of his
Proposed Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”)
for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). In
his June 14, 2019 PF&R, the magistrate judge accurately
summarized plaintiffs' complaint: “The . . .
Complaint generally alleges civil rights claims against the
United States of America and the State of West Virginia
arising out of federal and state policies limiting the
availability of prescription opioid pain medication.”
ECF No. 46, at 1.
magistrate judge recommends that this complaint and civil
action be dismissed without prejudice inasmuch as “it
is apparent from the face of the Complaint that this federal
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the
plaintiffs' claims.” Id. at 4,
The magistrate judge further recommends that the motion to
dismiss filed by the State of West Virginia be denied without
to the recommended dismissal of the underlying complaint, the
magistrate judge ordered that the remaining motions by
non-party individuals seeking to join the complaint be denied
without prejudice. ECF No. 47 On July 1, 2019, as time to
file objections was about to expire, plaintiffs requested a
45-day extension of time to file objections to the magistrate
judge's PF&R. ECF No. 51. On July 3, 2019, the court
granted plaintiffs' request to the extent that plaintiffs
were directed to file any objections by July 23, 2019. ECF
No. 52. On July 22, 2019, plaintiffs filed, instead, an
amended complaint as well as an “Overview” of
their amended complaint. ECF Nos. 53, 54. Also on July 22,
2019, plaintiffs filed another document entitled “July
20, 2019 Amended Complaint Motions of the Plaintiffs in
Complaint 2:2019- cv-00037.” ECF. No. 55. No.
objections by plaintiffs were filed.
objections been filed, “[t]he Federal Magistrates Act
requires a district court to ‘make a de novo
determination of those portions of the [magistrate
judge's] report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.'”
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,
416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (emphasis in original)
(quoting 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)).
instead of objecting to any portion of the magistrate
judge's PF&R, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint, an “Overview, ” and “Motions of
the Plaintiffs in Complaint” seeking restraining orders
against various entities and other injunctive relief. It was
plaintiffs' obligation to raise specific written
objections to the PF&R, which they have neglected to do.
the magistrate judge having found and recommended that the
original complaint be dismissed without prejudice for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction as assigned in the PF&R and
that the State of West Virginia's motion to dismiss be
denied without prejudice; and no specific written objection
to those findings and recommendations having been filed; it
is ORDERED that the findings and recommendations made in the
PF&R of the magistrate judge be, and they hereby are,
adopted by the court and incorporated herein.
therefore, ORDERED that the plaintiffs' original
complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed without prejudice
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It is further
ORDERED that the State of West Virginia's motion to
dismiss be, and it hereby is, denied without prejudice. It is
further ORDERED that this case and the plaintiffs'
amended complaint, filed July 22, 2019, be, and hereby is,
again referred to the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. §
Clerk is directed to forward copies of this written opinion
and order to the plaintiffs, all counsel of record, and the
United States Magistrate Judge.
 The magistrate judge further found
that if this court determines that it does have subject
matter jurisdiction, the plaintiffs' complaint should be
dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure “because the defendants were not properly
served with process.” ECF No. 46, at 8. However, such a
dismissal occurs only after notice to the plaintiffs as set
forth in Rule 4(m).
 It is further ORDERED that the motion
by Dennis Shivers to join the complaint, filed June 17, 2019
be, and it hereby is, ...