Morgan v. Young

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

DAIRION E. MORGAN, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-cv-00101 YOUNG, HECKARD, ROGER EDWARDS, D. SCOTT, AMY GOODE, MELISSA SUBER, S. VEST, RODRIGUEZ, MELISSA FOX, and FAIN,

Defendants. ORDER Pending is Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, filed February 8, 2023. [Doc. 2]. 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”). [Doc. 3]. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R on March 14, 2023. [Doc. 6]. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion. Id. 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 Plaintiff’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 31, 2023. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 6] and DENIES Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction [Doce. 2]. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: September 6, 2023

: eos Frank W. Volk”