Williams v. Weaver, No. 5:2019cv00629 - Document 13 (S.D.W. Va. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER denying the 4 Application Petition to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees or Costs, adopting the 12 Proposed Findings and Recommendations, dismisses without prejudice the 1 Complaint and dismisses this matter. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 4/6/2022. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (lca)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Williams v. Weaver Doc. 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY MALIK WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-cv-00629 JASON WEAVER, Respondent. ORDER Pending is Petitioner Malik Williams’s Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs [Doc. 4], filed September 16, 2019. 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”). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R on February 25, 2022. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court deny the Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, dismiss the Complaint, and remove the matter from the Court’s docket. 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- Dockets.Justia.com 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 14, 2022. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 12], DENIES the Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs [Doc. 4], DISMISSES without prejudice the Complaint [Doc. 1], and DISMISSES the matter. The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 April 6, 2022
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
