Gavin Blake Austin v. Sergeant Justin Johnson, Raleigh County Sheriff's Department, July Remillard, CPS Supervisor, WV DHHR, Kelly Millard, CPS supervisor WV DHHR, Crystal Mead, CPS Case Worker WV DHHR, Shanon Ward, CPS Case Worker WV DHHR, Andrew Dimlich, Judge, Raleigh County Circuit Court, and West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR)

• Court: District Court, S.D. West Virginia
• Decided: October 23, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-00511
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

AT BECKLEY

GAVIN BLAKE AUSTIN,

Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-cv-00511

SERGEANT JUSTIN JOHNSON, Raleigh County Sheriff's Department, JULY REMILLARD, CPS Supervisor, WV DHHR, KELLY MILLARD, CPS supervisor WV DHHR, CRYSTAL MEAD, CPS Case Worker WV DHHR, SHANON WARD, CPS Case Worker WV DHHR, ANDREW DIMLICH, Judge, Raleigh County Circuit Court, and WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES (DHHR) Respondents.

ORDER

Pending are Gavin Blake Austin’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs [ECF 1], Complaint [ECF 3], and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [ECF 4], all filed August 22, 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 August 26, 2025. [See ECF 6]. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court deny Mr. Austin’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs [ECF 1], dismiss Mr. Austin’s Complaint [ECF 3], and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. [See ECF 6]. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn thereafter entered an order denying as moot Mr. Austin’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 2], and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order & Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 4]. [See ECF 7]. 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 12, 2025. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 6], DENIES Mr. Austin’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs [ECF 1], DISMISSES Mr. Austin’s Complaint [ECF 3], 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: October 23, 2025

eae 2 Frank W. Volk Same = Chief United States District Judge