Opinion
Civil Action 5:21-cv-00514
04-04-2022
GARCIA FELIZ MALDONADO, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL D. CARVAJAL, Director of BOP J.C. PETRUCC, Regional Director, D.L. YOUNG, Warden of FCI Beckley, and J. BALL, Case Manager, Defendants.
ORDER
Frank W. Volk, United States District Judge
Pending is Plaintiff Garcia Feliz Maldonado's Complaint [Doc. 1], filed September 13, 2021. 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 4, 2022. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint in part.
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 con clusory 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 February 18, 2022. The Plaintiff, however, filed a motion to extend the time to object [Doc. 10], which the Court granted. The Court extended the objection deadline to March 21, 2022. [Doc. 14]. No. objections were filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 9], DENIES Plaintiff s Motion for Emergency Preliminary Injunction and Preliminary Hearing [Doc. 7], DISMISSES IN PART Plaintiffs Complaint [Doc. 1] as it relates to the Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment and Due Process Claims regarding his transfer to a higher security level prison, and REREFERS the matter to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn regarding Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment excessive force claim and nutritionally inadequate diet claim.
The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party.