UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

GARLAND S. SLADE, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:21-cv-00314 DAVID L. YOUNG, Warden, MS. ARVIZA, Assistant Warden, MR. C. VENTURINO, Retired Case Manager, MR. R. HEDRICK, Unit Manager, MR. J. GROGAN, Ex-Unit Counselor, MR. R. BOWYER, Unit Counselor, MR. LILLY, Case Manager, MR. TURNER, Unit Counselor — from Different Unit, Respondents. ORDER Pending are Petitioner’s Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees or Costs [Doc. 1] and Complaint [Doc. 2], both filed May 24, 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 February 29, 2024. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court deny Petitioner’s Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees or Costs [Doc. 1], dismiss the Complaint [Doc. 2] without prejudice, and remove this matter from the 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 18, 2024. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 7], DENIES Petitioner’s Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees or Costs [Doc. 1], DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE 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: April 9, 2024

ad Frank W. Volk ons United States District Judge