Kavazanjian v. W.V. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation, No. 5:2022cv00151 - Document 9 (S.D.W. Va. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER adopting the 6 Proposed Findings and Recommendations; granting the 5 Motion by Plaintiff for Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A); dismissing without prejudice the 1 Complaint; this matter is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 6/1/2022. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (ts)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Kavazanjian v. W.V. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation Doc. 9 Case 5:22-cv-00151 Document 9 Filed 06/01/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 38 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY RICHARD KAVAZANJIAN, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-cv-00151 W.V. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, Defendant. ORDER Pending is Plaintiff’s request for voluntary dismissal [Doc. 5], filed May 4, 2022. 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 May 5, 2022. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court construe Plaintiff’s request for voluntary dismissal as a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A), grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A), dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice, and remove this 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 Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:22-cv-00151 Document 9 Filed 06/01/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 39 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 May 19, 2022. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 6], GRANTS the Plaintiff’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A) [Doc. 5], DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Plaintiff’s 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 June 1, 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.
