Hoyt v. FCI Beckley

Filing 8

ORDER adopting the 7 Proposed Findings and Recommendation; dismissing the 1 letter-form Complaint and the matter. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 2/16/2021. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (msa)

Case 5:18-cv-01240 Document 8 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BECKLEY
RICHARD W. HOYT,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-cv-01240

FCI BECKLEY,
Defendant.
ORDER
Pending is Plaintiff’s letter-form Complaint [Doc. 1], filed August 17, 2018. 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 15, 2021. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that
the Court dismiss the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and L. R. Civ. P.
41.1, as the petitioner did not pay the filing fee and made no effort to communicate with the Court
regarding his failure to do so.
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) (emphasis added) (“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.”). 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.

Case 5:18-cv-01240 Document 8 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 26

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 1, 2021. No objections were filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 7] and DISMISSES the letterform Complaint [Doc. 1] and the matter.
The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record
and any unrepresented party herein.
ENTER: February 16, 2021

2