IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

CHARLESTON DIVISION

FELIX BRIZUELA,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-cv-00345

WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On August 17, 2022, the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed his Complaint (Document 1) in this matter. Subsequently, on November 10, 2022, the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint Against West Virginia Medical Board (Document 29) was filed. Pending in the matter are Defendant, West Virginia Board of Osteopathic Medicine’s, Motion to Dismiss (Document 13) filed on September 21, 2022, and Defendant, West Virginia Board of Osteopathic Medicine’s, Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (Document 30) filed on November 23, 2022. By Administrative Order (Document 8) entered on November 12, 2022, this action was referred to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission to this Court of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition, pursuant to

. On January 9, 2023, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 37) wherein it is recommended that this Court grant the Defendant’s motion dismiss the amended complaint (Document 30), dismiss the Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Document 29) with prejudice, and remove 1 this matter from the Court’s docket. It is further recommended that the Defendant’s initial motion (Document 13) to dismiss the original complaint be denied as moot. Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by January 26, 2023. Neither party has timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation. The Court is not required to 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. Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and a party’s right to appeal this Court’s Order.

(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour,

(4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce,

(4th Cir. 1984). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS that Defendant, West Virginia Board of Osteopathic Medicine’s, Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (Document 30) be GRANTED, the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint Against West Virginia Medical Board (Document 29) be DISMISSED with prejudice, and this matter be REMOVED from the Court’s docket. The Court further ORDERS that Defendant, West Virginia Board of Osteopathic Medicine’s, Motion to Dismiss (Document 13) be DENIED as MOOT. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: February 1, 2023 Dire. Benger’ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA