Whipple v. Bureau of Prisons

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY ROBERT Z. WHIPPLE, III, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-cv-00040 BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendant.

ORDER Pending is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, [Doc. 18], filed on May 23, 2024. 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”). [Doc. 3]. Plaintiff responded on May 30, 2024, [Doc. 21], and Defendant replied on June 10, 2024. [Doc. 22]. On October 9, 2024, Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R, [Doc. 23], recommending that the Court grant Defendant’s motion 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, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(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 Plaintiff’s right to appeal the Court’s order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. De Leon- Ramirez, 925 F.3d 177, 181 (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, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (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, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Objections in this case were due on October 23, 2024.

No objections were filed.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 23], GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 18], 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: November 7, 2024 ies Frank W. Volk “Game Chief United States District Judge