UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

THOMAS C. ROBINSON, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-cv-00579 D.L. YOUNG, Warden, P. BOULET, Associate Warden - Operations, M. ARVIZA, Associate Warden - Programs, NANCY O’DELL, Case Management Coordinator, T. CARTER, Assistant Case Management Coordinator, ERIN STENETTE, Unit Manager, CHRISTY MEADOWS, Case Manager, C. RODRIGUEZ, Captain, BRANDON FAIN, Health Services Administrator, ROGER EDWARDS, D.O. - Physician, JOE COOPER, P.A. - Physician’s Assistant, and N. THOMAS, Food Services Administrator,

Respondents. ORDER Pending is Petitioner’s Complaint [Doc. 2], filed September 8, 2020, and Petitioner’s Application to Proceed with Prepayment of Fees and Costs [Doc. 6], filed October 19, 2020. This action was previously referred to the 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 September 20, 2021. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court dismiss Petitioner’s Complaint without prejudice and deny his Application. 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 October 4, 2021. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 9], DENIES Petitioner’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs [Doc. 6], DISMISSES the Complaint [Doc. 2], and DISMISSES the matter. The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: February 8, 2022 Qe we Ry lrank W. Volk “tems United States District Judge