Sweeney v. Shepherd University Police Corporation — Dismissed with Prejudice
Summary
William Robert Sweeney's civil action against Shepherd University Police Corporation and multiple other defendants was dismissed with prejudice in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. The court adopted a Magistrate Judge's proposed findings and recommendation after the plaintiff failed to file timely objections by the March 23, 2026 deadline. Four separate motions to dismiss filed by the various defendants were granted, terminating the litigation.
About this source
GovPing monitors US District Court NDWV Docket Feed for new courts & legal regulatory changes. Every update since tracking began is archived, classified, and available as free RSS or email alerts — 4 changes logged to date.
What changed
The court granted four separate motions to dismiss and dismissed the civil action with prejudice, meaning the plaintiff is barred from refiling the same claim. The dismissal was based on the magistrate judge's finding and recommendation, adopted without de novo review because the plaintiff failed to file timely objections.
Parties considering similar civil litigation against university police or state entities should ensure compliance with procedural requirements, including deadlines for filing objections to magistrate judge recommendations. Failure to object constitutes a waiver of appellate rights.
Archived snapshot
Apr 24, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
Jump To
Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
April 23, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
William Robert Sweeney v. Shepherd University Police Corporation, et al.
District Court, N.D. West Virginia
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 3:25-cv-00161
Precedential Status: Unknown Status
Trial Court Document
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.)
1
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
GE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Related changes
Get daily alerts for US District Court NDWV Docket Feed
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from USDC N.D. W.Va..
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when US District Court NDWV Docket Feed publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.