Andrew Miller v. Detective Cpl. Michael P. Deems, P.F.C. Patrolman Sweester,...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY ANDREW MILLER, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:26-cv-00077 DETECTIVE CPL. MICHAEL P. DEEMS, and P.F.C. PATROLMAN SWEESTER, and DETECTIVE SARGENT MORGAN BRAGG, and DETECTIVE JOSEPH STEWART, and PATROLMAN ADAM JUSTICE, Defendants.

ORDER Pending are Plaintiff Andrew Miller’s Applications to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs [Docs. 1-2] and Complaint [Doc. 3], seeking relief for alleged violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, all filed February 2, 2026. 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 February 4, 2026. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court deny Mr. Millers’ Applications to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs pursuant to the three-strike provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), dismiss Mr. Millers’ Complaint, and remove this matter from the docket.

After entry of Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn’s PF&R, Mr. Miller filed two additional Applications to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs [Docs. 8, 9] and an Amended Complaint [Doc. 10] as of right. Inasmuch as the purported Amended Complaint is merely another copy of Mr. Miller’s original Complaint, it does not alter the analysis or recommendation contained in Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn’s PF&R. 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 February 23, 2026.

No objections were filed.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 7], DENIES Mr. Miller’s Applications to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs pursuant to the three-strike provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) [Docs. 1, 2, 8, 9], DISMISSES Mr. Miller’s Complaints [Docs.

3, 10] and REMOVES this 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 er a arte 2 Frank W. Volk “ume” Chief United States District Judge