UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

WILLIAM JOSEPH KESSLER, III, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-cv-551 CORNELIUS RUSSELL LEWIS, GREG TANNER, JOHN W. GALLAGHER, JR., HONORABLE JUDGE H. L. KIRKPATRICK, III, and CPL. NEAL JAMES SMITH,

Respondent. ORDER Pending are Mr. Kessler’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees, [ECF 1 and 6], and Complaints [ECF 2 and 7], filed December 5, 2022, and December 27, 2022. 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 February 15, 2024, Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court deny Mr. Kessler’s Applications to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs [ECF 1 and 6], Dismiss Mr. Kessler’s Complaints [ECF 2 and 7], 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 March 4, 2024. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 9], DENIES Mr. Kessler’s Applications to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs [ECF 1 and 6], DISMISSES Mr. Kessler’s Complaints [ECF 2 and 7], 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: April 4, 2024 Zl a Frank W. Volk a United States District Judge