Andrew Wood v. Warden Messenger

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

ANDREW WOOD, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-cv-00735 WARDEN MESSENGER,

Defendant. ORDER Pending is Plaintiff Andrew Wood’s Verified Complaint, alleging violations of his constitutional and civil rights pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) [Doc. 2], filed December 15, 2025. 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 March 4, 2026. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court dismiss Mr. Wood’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clause claims as asserted in his Complaint and refer the matter anew for further proceedings on his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim respecting his medical care. 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 March 23, 2026. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 12], DISMISSES Mr. Wood’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clause claims as asserted in his Complaint, and REFERS the matter anew to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn for further proceedings on Mr. Wood’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim. The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: April 2, 2026

OD Frank W. Volk “fame = Chief United States District Judge