UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

CANE SINGLETON, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:21-cv-00256 MR. YOUNG, Warden, MR. FAIN, Health Service Supervisor, ATKINS, Psychology, HAGWOOD, Psychology, B. JERALD, Medical, RICH, JANE DOE, and UNIT MANAGER SMITH,

Respondents.

ORDER

Pending is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment [Doc. 52], filed October 22, 2021. 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 June 16, 2022. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaints [Docs. 2, 9, 26] with prejudice, deny as moot Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment [Doc. 52], and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. 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 July 5, 2022. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 65], DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaints [Does. 2, 9, 26], DENIES AS MOOT the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment [Doc. 52], 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: September 19, 2022 Zell A Frank W. Volk <Orran United States District Judge