Holt v. Heckard

• Court: District Court, S.D. West Virginia
• Decided: July 22, 2025
• Docket: 5:23-cv-00179
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

LYNN HOLT, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-cv-00179 KATINA HECKARD,

Respondent. ORDER Pending is Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 2], filed March 3, 2023. 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 30, 2025. [Doc. 15]. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court dismiss as moot Petitioner’s Section 2241 Petition and remove this matter from the Court’s 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. 15], DISMISSES as moot the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 2], 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: July 22, 2025 Zalia a ae vtenk W. Volk “Tame = Chief United States District Judge