Michael Anthony Brown v. Warden W. Holzapfel, Dr. Edwards, Mat Coordinator Ms....

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY MICHAEL ANTHONY BROWN, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-cv-00606 WARDEN W. HOLZAPFEL, DR. EDWARDS, MAT COORDINATOR MS. THOMPSON, FCI BECKLEY, HOWELL, Associate Warden of Programs, DR. ATKINS, Chief of Psychology, HSA MS. FOX, and PHYSICIANS ASSIST COOPER, Defendants.

ORDER Pending are Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 49], and Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay. [ECF 67].

This action was previously referred to the Honorable Joseph K. Reeder, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”).

Magistrate Judge Reeder filed his PF&R on August 1, 2025. [ECF 68]. Magistrate Judge Reeder recommended the Court grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 49], deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay [ECF 67], dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [ECF 32] with prejudice, and remove the case 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 Petitioner’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 November 1, 2025. No objections were filed.' Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 68], GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 49], DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Stay [ECF 67], and DISMISSES the matter.

The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.

ENTER: January 12, 2026 “Tams Chief United States District Judge ' On September 26, 2025, Mr. Brown filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections to the PF&R. [ECF 73]. On October 15, 2025, the Court granted Mr. Brown’s Motion [ECF 74] and extended the deadline to file objections to November 1, 2025. Mr. Brown did not file objections after the deadline was extended.