Anderson v. Holzapfel

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

DE’ANDRE ANDERSON, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-cv-00554 W. HOLZAPFEL,

Respondent. ORDER Pending is Respondent W. Holzapfel’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 9], filed February 4, 2025. This action was previously referred to the Honorable Dwane L. Tinsley, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on February 26, 2025. [Doc. 10]. Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended that the Court grant Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, deny as moot Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, and dismiss the matter from the 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 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 March 17, 2025. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 10], GRANTS Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 9], DENIES AS MOOT Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [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: March 18, 2025 Felilta “Tae = Chief United States District Judge