Sweeney v. Shepherd University Police Corporation et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MARTINSBURG DIVISION
WILLIAM ROBERT SWEENEY,
Plaintiff,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-cv-00161
SHEPHERD UNIVERSITY POLICE CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are four motions to dismiss, (ECF Nos. 6, 8, 9, 11), brought by
Defendants John A. Jeffries, Michael King, Shepherdstown Police Department Corporation, and
Austin Simms, (ECF No. 6); Defendants Vicky D’Angelo and Arthena Roper, (ECF No. 8);
Defendants Robert Joseph James and Shepherd University Police Corporation, (ECF No. 9); and
Matthew L. Harvey, Morgan E. Nick, and the West Virginia Prosecuting Attorney’s Office,
(collectively “the Defendants”), (ECF No. 11). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) this Court
entered an order on January 5, 2026, that referred this action to United States Magistrate Judge
Omar J. Aboulhosn for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). (ECF
No. 14.) Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R on March 6, 2026, recommending that the
Court GRANT Defendants’ motions to dismiss, and DISMISS this civil action with prejudice.
(ECF No. 30.)
Case 3:25-cv-00161-TEJ-OJA Document 32 Filed 04/23/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
The Court is not required to review, under 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. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file
timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Petitioner’s right to appeal this
Court’s Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th
Cir.1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). In addition, this Court need
not conduct a 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 to the PF&R in this case were
due on March 23, 2026. (ECF No. 30.) To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 30), GRANTS the Defendants’
motions to dismiss, (ECF Nos. 6, 8, 9, 11), and DISMISSES this case with prejudice from the
docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.
ENTER: April 23, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-00161-TEJ-OJA Document 32 Filed 04/23/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>