Mayfield v. Young et al

Filing 10

ORDER adopting the 8 Proposed Findings and Recommendations, denying as moot Plaintiff's 1 Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, and dismissing the matter without prejudice. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 1/17/2023. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (btm)

Case 5:20-cv-00160 Document 10 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 55

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BECKLEY
CORNELIUS MAYFIELD,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-cv-00160

WARDEN YOUNG,
NURSE/PHARMACIST MR. SHIFFLET,
NURSE MR. ROSE, and
OTHER MEDICAL PERSONELS UNKOWN,
Defendants.
ORDER
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 September 29, 2022. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn
recommended that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice.
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 LeonRamirez, 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

Case 5:20-cv-00160 Document 10 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 56

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). While Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn’s PF&R was
initially returned as undeliverable, it was resent on October 21, 2022 [Doc. 9].1 From that date,
objections were due on November 7, 2022. No objections were filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 8], DENIES AS MOOT
Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs [Doc. 1], and
DISMISSES the matter WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of
record and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

1

January 17, 2023

The Court notes that a pro se plaintiff must notify the Court of any change of address or other
contact information. L.R. Civ. P. 83.5.
2