ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL

IRENE M. KEELEY, District Judge.

On March 20, 2015, the pro se plaintiff, Michael Anthony Jones ("Jones"), filed a civil rights complaint against a number of defendants concerning his medical care at U.S.P. Hazelton (dkt. no. 1-1). Jones's brought his initial complaint against the defendants in their individual capacities pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (dkt. no. 11). On October 1, 2015, he filed an additional complaint in this same case asserting a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") against the United States of America (dkt. no. 62).

The Court referred this matter to United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble for initial screening and a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") in accord with LR PL P 2.1 On November 17, 2016, Magistrate Judge Trumble issued his R&R, in which he concluded that Jones had failed to state a valid Bivens claim and also had failed to file a screening certificate of merit pursuant to West Virginia Code § 55-7B-6(c), a necessary requirement of his FTCA claim (dkt. no. 138). The R&R recommended that the Court deny Jones's motion for summary judgment (dkt. no. 114), grant the defendants' motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 92), dismiss Jones's Bivens claim with prejudice, dismiss his FTCA claim without prejudice, and dismiss as moot his motion to compel (dkt. no. 132). Id. at 20-21.

The R&R also specifically warned Jones that his failure to object to the recommendation would result in the waiver of any appellate rights he might otherwise have on this issue. Id. at 21. On December 5, 2016, Jones moved for an extension of time to file any objections to the R&R (dkt. no. 140), which the Court granted in part, giving Jones twenty-eight days to object, double the statutorily required time (dkt. no. 142). Rather than utilizing that time to write any objections, Jones continued to write motions for additional extensions of time (dkt. nos. 144 and 147), which the Court denied (dkt. nos. 145 and 148), as well as duplicative motion to compel (dkt. no. 141). Despite multiple clear warnings to Jones that no further extensions would be granted and that no late filings would be considered, he failed to file any objections.2

After reviewing Magistrate Judge Trumble's thorough and detailed R&R, together with the record, the Court, finding no clear error, agrees with the reasoning and conclusions contained therein. Accordingly, the Court:

It is so ORDERED.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to enter a separate judgment order and to transmit copies of this order to counsel of record and to the pro se plaintiff, certified mail, return receipt requested.