UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

SHERRY HAMMITT,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:21-cv-00204

MERRICK GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

ORDER Pending is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 14], filed July 30, 2021. In lieu of responding, Plaintiff requested additional time to obtain counsel. [Doc. 17]. Plaintiff was given until September 17, 2021, to advise the Court of any legal representation or to file her response to Defendant’s motion. [Doc. 18]. Plaintiff did not respond. This action was previously referred to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R on October 13, 2021. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court dismiss the action from the Court’s docket for failure to prosecute and deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss as moot. [Doc. 20]. The Court need not 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. See Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); see also

(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”) (emphasis added). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Petitioner’s right to appeal the Court’s order. See

(b)(1); see also United States v. De Leon- Ramirez,

(4th Cir. 2019) (parties may not typically “appeal a magistrate judge’s findings that were not objected to below, as § 636(b) doesn’t require de novo review absent objection.”); Snyder v. Ridenour,

(4th Cir. 1989). Further, the Court need not conduct de novo review when a party “makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the Court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson,

(4th Cir. 1982). Objections in this case were due on November 1, 2021. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 20] and DISMISSES the matter for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to dismiss [Doc. 14] as moot. The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: November 8, 2021 Qe a Kn Frank W. Volk Snare” United States District Judge