James Lee Nicholas v. Ron White and Josha Dowing

• Court: District Court, S.D. West Virginia
• Decided: March 13, 2026
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00308
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON

JAMES LEE NICHOLAS, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-cv-00308 RON WHITE and JOSHA DOWING,

Defendants. ORDER Pending are Plaintiff James Lee Nicholas’ (1) Complaint [Doc. 1], filed June 24, 2024, and (2) Letter-Form Motion to Amend Complaint [Doc. 5], filed March 20, 2025, along with additional documentation [Docs. 6, 7]. This action was previously referred to the Honorable Dwane L. Tinsley, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on February 13, 2026. Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended that the Court deny Mr. Nicholas’ Letter-Form Motion to Amend Complaint, dismiss his Complaint and additional documentation, and remove this civil action from the docket under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 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 2, 2026. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 8], DENIES Mr. Nicholas’ Letter-Form Motion to Amend [Doc. 5], DISMISSES Mr. Nicholas’ Complaint [Doc. 1] and additional documentation [Docs. 6, 7], and REMOVES this matter from the docket. The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: March 13, 2026

Cy N\la “fmm Chief United States District Judge