Williams v. Dr. Rashed et al

Filing 29

ORDER adopting the 28 PF&R, granting Ms. Foster's 19 Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment and removing this matter from the docket. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 8/2/2021. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (btm)

Case 5:19-cv-00159 Document 29 Filed 08/02/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 229

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BECKLEY
MICHAEL D. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-cv-00159

BRITTANY FOSTER,
Defendant.
ORDER
Pending is Defendant Brittany Foster’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint and
Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 19], filed November 5, 2020. 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 July 2, 2021. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court grant
Ms. Foster’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment 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-

Case 5:19-cv-00159 Document 29 Filed 08/02/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 230

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 July 19, 2021. No
objections were filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 28], GRANTS Ms. Foster’s
Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 19] 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.
ENTERED: August 2, 2021

2