Mathis Johnson v. Judge Bailey and Judge Mazzone and Officer Berkenstock PPD and Church of Christ Buckey St. and WVDCR & Military Affairs and Les Thompson, Unit Manager HCC and Kayla Brewer, HCC and HCC SEQ and Donald Trump and HCC Medical and WVDCR

• Court: District Court, N.D. West Virginia
• Decided: March 17, 2026
• Docket: 5:25-cv-00188
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT WHEELING

MATHIS JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-cv-00188

JUDGE BAILEY and JUDGE MAZZONE and OFFICER BERKENSTOCK PPD and CHURCH OF CHRIST BUCKEY ST. and WVDCR & MILITARY AFFAIRS and LES THOMPSON, Unit Manager HCC, and KAYLA BREWER, HCC, and HCC SEQ and DONALD TRUMP and HCC MEDICAL and WVDCR,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending are Plaintiff Mathis Johnson’s pro se Letter-Form Objections [ECF 22] to the Proposed Findings and Recommendations (“PF&R”) entered by the Honorable Joseph K. Reeder, United States Magistrate Judge, on February 17, 2026. [ECF 18]. The matter is ready for adjudication.

I.

This action was previously referred to Magistrate Judge Reeder for submission of a PF&R. Magistrate Judge Reeder filed his PF&R on February 17, 2026 [ECF 18], in which he addressed Mr. Johnson’s pro se Motion for Change of Venue. [ECF 9]. Magistrate Judge Reeder recommended the Court deny Mr. Johnson’s Motion as moot, and alternatively, deny the Motion on the merits. [ECF 18 at 3].

II.

Federal law provides that “[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.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Samples v. Ballard, 860 F.3d 266, 272. Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Petitioner’s right to appeal the Court’s order. See id.; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (stating that review of a magistrate judge’s factual or legal conclusions is not required as to those portions of the findings or recommendation to which no objections are addressed); 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). “Moreover, a general objection to a magistrate judge's findings is not sufficient [to trigger de novo review] -- ‘a party must object to the [magistrate's] finding or recommendation . . . with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection.’” United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 428 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 626, 621–22 (4th Cir. 2007)); see Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982) (“Courts have also held de novo review to be unnecessary . . . 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.”). Mr. Johnson fails to assert any clear objection to Magistrate Judge Reeder’s findings in the PF&R. [See ECF 22]. Instead, he reiterates his claims against Judge Bailey. As explained by Magistrate Judge Reeder, after Mr. Johnson filed his motion, the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit designated the undersigned to preside over this matter. [ECF 6; ECF 18 at 2]. Accordingly, “no judicial officer of the Northern District of West Virginia who is a named defendant is presiding over this case.” [ECF 18 at 2]. Inasmuch as Mr. Johnson’s Letter-Form Objections fail to direct the Court to a specific error in Magistrate Judge Reeder’s findings, Mr. Johnson’s objections are OVERRULED.

Il.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Mr. Johnson’s objections [ECF 22], ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 18], DENIES as MOOT, and alternatively, DENIES on the merits Mr. Johnson’s Motion for Change of Venue [ECF 9], and ORDERS the case be REFERRED anew to Magistrate Judge Reeder under the terms of the original referral order. The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: March 17, 2026

“ams” Chief United States District Judge