Quantel Saunders v. Co Mills, Co Ayers (SHU 1), Co Scarbro, Lt Bailey, Co...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY QUANTEL SAUNDERS, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-cv-00560 CO MILLS and CO AYERS (SHU 1) and CO SCARBRO and LT BAILEY and CO MCQUADE and CO PRIVETE and CO BIILINGS and CO CONNER and CO KEENAN and CO KINKAIN and CO JOHNSON and CO MULLINS and CO WARD and CO DOTSON and CO LAW and CO WOODS and CO BERRY and CO PENNINGTON and CO FARRISH and WARDEN HOLZAPFEL and ASS WARDEN HOWELL and CAPT METZGER and UNIT MANAGER SMITH and CASE MANAGER MCCOY and HEAD R & D/MAIL ROOM HILL and COUNSELOR HUMPHERIES and LT BAILEY and SIS DUNCAN and SIS SWEENY and SIS STINNETT and SIS DENNY, In their Individual Capacity and Official Capacity, Defendants.

ORDER Pending are Plaintiff Quantel Saunders’ Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs [Doc. 1] and Complaint [Doc. 2], seeking relief pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), both filed September 22, 2025. 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 January 16, 2026. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court deny Mr. Saunders’ Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs, dismiss Mr. Saunders’ Complaint, 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, 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 April 13, 2026.!

No objections were filed.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 9], DENIES Mr. Saunders’ Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs [Doc. 1], DISMISSES Mr. Saunders’ Complaint [Doe. 2], and REMOVES the matter from the docket.

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

ENTER: May 5, 2026 ©: W. Volk “game = Chief United States District Judge ' On February 11, 2026, the Court granted Mr. Saunders’ a sixty-day extension to file his objections. [Doc 11].