Calvin Moore v. United States of America

• Court: District Court, S.D. West Virginia
• Decided: October 31, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00243
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON

CALVIN MOORE,

Movant,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-00243 CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 2:21-00217

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending is movant’s “Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody” (ECF No. 71), and Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion (ECF No. 72), both filed on May 13, 2024. As movant has proceeded pro se, this action was referred to the Honorable Dwane L. Tinsley, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of Proposed Findings and Recommendations (“PF&R”). Judge Tinsley entered his PF&R (ECF No. 78) on September 5, 2025, to which objections were due by September 22, 2025. No objections have been filed. 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 and recommendations to which no objection has been 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.”) Failure to timely file objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the plaintiff’s right to appeal the order of the court. 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 typically may not “appeal a magistrate judge’s findings that were not objected to below, as [28 U.S.C.] § 636(b) doesn’t require de novo review absent objection”) Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989). Objections in this case having been due on September 22, 2025, and none having been

filed, and the court finding no clear error, this matter may be duly adjudicated.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations made in the magistrate judge’s Proposed Findings and 2 Recommendations (ECF No. 78) be, and hereby are, ADOPTED by the court and incorporated herein; 2. The movant’s pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (ECF No. 71), be and hereby is DENIED; and This action be, and hereby is DISMSSED from the docket of this court.

The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this order to all counsel of record, any unrepresented parties, and the United States Magistrate Judge.

DATED: October 31, 2025

Jo . Copenhaver, Jr. Senior United States District Judge