Davis v. Warden

• Court: District Court, S.D. West Virginia
• Decided: July 14, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-00093
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

JAMES DAVIS, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-cv-00093 FCI BECKLEY WARDEN,

Respondent. ORDER Pending is Petitioner James Davis’ Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1], filed February 14, 2025. 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 28, 2025. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court dismiss Mr. Davis’ Section 2241 Petition for failure to prosecute and remove this 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 June 16, 2025. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 4], DISMISSES Mr. Davis’ Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C § 2241 [Doc. 1] for failure to prosecute, and REMOVES this matter from the docket. The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: July 14, 2025

Frank W. Volk “tos” = = Chief United States District Judge