William Robert Sweeney v. Shepherd University Police Corporation, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA MARTINSBURG DIVISION

WILLIAM ROBERT SWEENEY, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-cv-00161 SHEPHERD UNIVERSITY POLICE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court are four motions to dismiss, (ECF Nos. 6, 8, 9, 11), brought by Defendants John A. Jeffries, Michael King, Shepherdstown Police Department Corporation, and Austin Simms, (ECF No. 6); Defendants Vicky D’Angelo and Arthena Roper, (ECF No. 8); Defendants Robert Joseph James and Shepherd University Police Corporation, (ECF No. 9); and Matthew L. Harvey, Morgan E. Nick, and the West Virginia Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, (collectively “the Defendants”), (ECF No. 11). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) this Court entered an order on January 5, 2026, that referred this action to United States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). (ECF No. 14.) Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R on March 6, 2026, recommending that the Court GRANT Defendants’ motions to dismiss, and DISMISS this civil action with prejudice. (ECF No. 30.)

The Court is not required to review, under 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. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Petitioner’s right to appeal this Court’s Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). In addition, this Court need not conduct a 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 to the PF&R in this case were due on March 23, 2026. (ECF No. 30.) To date, no objections have been filed.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 30), GRANTS the Defendants’ motions to dismiss, (ECF Nos. 6, 8, 9, 11), and DISMISSES this case with prejudice from the docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

ENTER: April 23, 2026 GE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE