Steele v. Pack

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY CODY SETH STEELE, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-cv-00584 CORRECTIONAL OFFICER PACK and CORRECTIONAL OFFICER COX and CORRECTIONAL OFFICER CLEAR and SGT. LILLY, Defendants. ORDER Pending is Defendant Correctional Officer Pack’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF 25], filed January 12, 2026. 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 14, 2026. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended the Court grant Officer Pack’s Motion to Dismiss and Dismiss the Complaint with prejudice as to Officer Pack and without prejudice as to Defendants Cox, Clear and Lilly for lack of service. 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 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 June 1, 2026. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 41], GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss [ECF 25], DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE all claims against Officer Pack, and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE all claims against Officer Cox, Officer Clear, and Sgt. Lilly [ECF 1], and DISMISSES the matter. The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: June 26, 2026 “tems” Chief United States District Judge