Kevin Wayne Davis v. USA/DOJ

• Court: District Court, S.D. West Virginia
• Decided: March 25, 2026
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00017
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON

KEVIN WAYNE DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:23-cv-00017

USA/DOJ,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending are Plaintiff Kevin Wayne Davis’s Complaint (ECF 1) and Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (ECF 5). 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 (ECF 10) on August 5, 2025. Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended that the court dismiss this civil action from the docket for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(h)(3), and deny as moot Mr. Davis’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs. 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 originally due on August 22, 2025. Upon learning that the PF&R had been returned as undeliverable to Mr. Davis’s address of record, the court inquired with Mr. Davis’s probation officer as to Mr. Davis’s current address and directed the Clerk to resend the PF&R to that address on February 23, 2026. Thus, objections were due on March 12, 2026. No objections were filed.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the findings made in the PF&R (ECF 10) be, and hereby they are, ADOPTED by the court and incorporated herein. It is further ORDERED that Mr. Davis’s Complaint (ECF 1) be, and hereby it is, DISMISSED; that Mr. Davis’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (ECF 5) be, and hereby it is, DENIED AS MOOT; and this Civil action be, and hereby it is, REMOVED from the docket.

The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this order to all counsel of record, any unrepresented parties, and the United States Magistrate Judge.

ENTER: March 25, 2026 sine pe Jo . Copenhaver, Jr. Senior United States District Judge