Johnson v. West Virginia University Board of Governors

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

CHARLESTON DIVISION

TIMOTHY A. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-cv-00380

WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY BOARD OF GOVERNORS, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Timothy Johnson’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Leave of Court to Amend Complaint. (ECF No. 246.) This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition (“PF&R”). (ECF No. 60.) On July 31, 2024, Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R recommending that Plaintiff’s motion be denied. (ECF No. 299.) This Court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, factual or legal conclusions contained within the PF&R to which no objections were addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and Plaintiff’s right to appeal this Court’s order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). In addition, this Court need not conduct a 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). Plaintiff timely filed a response to the PF&R stating that he has no objections. (ECF No. 302.) Accordingly, this Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 299), and DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Leave of Court to Amend Complaint. (ECF No. 246.) IT IS SO ORDERED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: April 25, 2025 Z, THOMAS E. JOHNSTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE