Saunders v. Clifford et al

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing that the 18 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Tinsley are ADOPTED by the court and incorporated herein; directing that Plaintiff's 10 APPLICATION to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs is DENIED AS MOOT; directing that this civil action is DISMISSED from the docket of this court. Signed by Senior Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 9/23/2024. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties; United States Magistrate Judge Tinsley) (skm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON
QUAUNTEL SAUNDERS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00226

CAPT. CLIFFORD, CAPT. TONEY,
LT. WILSON, ASST. FRAME,
WARDEN AMES, SRG. PETE, and
SRG. WILSON,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending is plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 17),
filed May 23, 2024, and his Application to Proceed Without
Prepayment of Fees and Costs (ECF No. 10), filed November 3,
2023.

As plaintiff is proceeding pro se, this matter was

referred to the Honorable Dwane L. Tinsley, United States
Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a
recommendation for disposition (“PF&R”).

Judge Tinsley entered

a PF&R (ECF No. 18) on June 25, 2024, to which neither party has
filed objections.
The amended complaint alleges that plaintiff was
denied the right to practice his religion and retaliated against
for filing grievances and civil actions, both in violation of

his First Amendment rights, and denied access to a watch or
television while in segregation (which prevented plaintiff from
knowing the correct times of day to pray), violating his right
to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

See PF&R at

2–3.
Judge Tinsley found that the alleged failure to allow
plaintiff access to a time-telling device was raised in his
complaint in the already-adjudicated Saunders v. Clifford, No.
2:21-cv-00299, and that the Fourteenth Amendment claim should
have been raised therein, arising as it does from the same
occurrences as the First Amendment Claims.

Id. at 7–8.

Thus,

Judge Tinsley concluded that these claims should be dismissed as
precluded by the doctrine of res judicata, as the allegations
“were previously raised, or should have been raised, in his
prior complaint which has already been adjudicated on the merits
by this court.”

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 and
recommendations to which no objection has been made.

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
2

recommendations to which objection is made.”).

Failure to

timely file objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review
and the plaintiff’s right to appeal the order of the court.

See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. De LeonRamirez, 925 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 2019) (parties typically
may not “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).
Objections in this case were due July 12, 2024.
However, the PF&R was returned to the Clerk’s office as
undeliverable and was subsequently resent to plaintiff’s new
address on August 6, 2024.

Based on the August 6 mailing date,

objections were due August 26.

No objections having been filed,

this matter may be fully adjudicated.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The magistrate judge’s Proposed Findings and
Recommendation be, and hereby are, ADOPTED by the
court and incorporated herein;
2. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment
of Fees and Costs be, and it hereby is, DENIED AS
MOOT; and

3

3. This civil action be, and it hereby is, DISMISSED from
the docket of this court.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this order
to all counsel of record, any unrepresented parties, and the
United States Magistrate Judge.
ENTER: September 23, 2024

4