UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON

ROBERT LOGAN MICHAEL, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-cv-00064 PAMELA GIVENS and SANDRA MAY Nurse, Mt. Olive Correctional and SHIRLEY HAMRICK Director of Nursing, Mt. Olive Correctional and DANIEL E. CONN CEO, Wexford Health Services and WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.,

Defendants. ORDER Pending are Defendants Wexford Health Sources, Inc. and Daniel E. Conn’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint [Doc. 17], filed April 30, 2024, Defendants Shirley Hamrick, Sandra May, and Pamela Givens’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 21], filed May 6, 2024, and Plaintiff Robert Logan Michael’s Letter-Form Motion to Amend Complaint [Doc. 38], filed March 6, 2025. This action was previously referred to the Honorable Dwane L. Tinsley, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on February 24, 2025. [Doc. 37]. Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended that the Court deny Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, deny Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive relief, and grant the Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. 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 13, 2025. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 37], DENIES the Motions to Dismiss WITHOUT PREJUDICE [Docs. 17, 21], DENIES Plaintiff's request for preliminary injunctive relief made in his Complaint [Doe. 2 at 15] and additional memorandum [Doc. 7], and GRANTS Plaintiff Leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the entry of this Order. Therefore, Mr. Michael’s Motion to Amend [Doc. 38] is GRANTED. The Court ORDERS the matter be REFERRED anew to Magistrate Judge Tinsley under the terms of the original referral order. The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: March 14, 2025 Send Va 5 < y Chief United States District Judge