Kavazanjian v. Doe et al

Filing 13

ORDER adopting the 12 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn; dismissing the 1 Complaint without prejudice and dismissing the matter. Signed by Chief Judge Frank W. Volk on 3/7/2025. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (jsa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BECKLEY
RICHARD A. KAVAZANJIAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-cv-378

JOHN/JIM/JAY DOE OFFICERS and
INVESTIGATOR/B.C.I. and
ALAN DOE and
BOB DOE and
VERIFICATION UNIT and
CHARLES DOE and
BEN MORRISEY and
JIM JUSTICE,
Defendants.
ORDER
Pending is Plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. 1], filed May 8, 2023. 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 February 10, 2025. [Doc. 12]. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that
the Court dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice 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 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
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 27, 2025.
No objections were filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 12], DISMISSES the
Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE [Doc. 1], 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:

2

March 7, 2025