Frederick Carter v. Officer Green, Booking Officer and Southern Regional Jail...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

FREDERICK CARTER, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-cv-00811

OFFICER GREEN, Booking Officer and SOUTHERN REGIONAL JAIL and BOOKING OFFICER JOHN DOE and BOOKING OFFICER JOHN DOE and BOOKING OFFICER JOHN DOE, Respondents.

ORDER Pending are Petitioner Frederick Carter’s Applications to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs [ECF 1; ECF 5], filed December 26, 2023, and January 22, 2024, respectively. Also pending is Mr. Carter’s Second Amended Complaint [ECF 9], filed August 26, 2024. 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 April 13, 2026. [See ECF 18]. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court deny Mr. Carter’s Applications to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, find Mr. Carter has failed to prosecute this action, and dismiss without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). [Id. at 7].

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 30, 2026.

No objections were filed.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 18], DENIES the Applications to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs [ECF 1; ECF 5], DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Second Amended Complaint [ECF 9], 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: May 7, 2026 Oe Chief United States District Judge