Davis v. Stennett et al

Filing 24

ORDER adopting the 22 Proposed Findings and Recommendations; dismisses the 1 and 18 Complaints without prejudice and dismisses this matter. Signed by Chief Judge Frank W. Volk on 9/23/2024. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (lca)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BECKLEY
WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-cv-00117

ERIN STENNETT, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Pending are Plaintiff William Scott Davis, Jr.’s Complaints [Docs. 1 and 18], filed
February 13, 2023, and July 3, 2023, respectively. 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 August
23, 2024. [Doc. 22]. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court dismiss Mr. Davis’
Complaints [Docs. 1 and 18] without prejudice for failure to prosecute and remove this matter
from the Court’s 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-

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 September 9,
2024. No objections were filed. 1
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 22], DISMISSES the
Complaints [Docs. 1 and 18] WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and DISMISSES the matter.
The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record
and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

1

September 23, 2024

On September 19, 2024, a notification of “Mail Returned as Undeliverable” was filed
denoting that the Proposed Findings and Recommendations were sent to William Scott Davis at
Rochester Federal Medical Center, P.O. Box 4000 Rochester, MN 55903. Specifically, the mail
was not resent because Mr. Davis was released on May 10, 2024, and no address was available.
[Doc. 23].
2