Jones v. Warden, FCI Becley (sic)

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

CHARLES W. JONES, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-cv-00505 WARDEN, FCI BECLEY [SIC],

Respondent. ORDER Pending is Petitioner Charles W. Jones’ pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [ECF 1], filed July 22, 2024, as well as Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF 13], filed December 4, 2024. This action was previously referred to the Honorable Joseph K. Reeder, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Reeder filed his PF&R on May 12, 2025, recommending that the Court grant Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, deny Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition, dismiss the matter with prejudice, and remove the 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 May 29, 2025. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 14], GRANTS Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF 13], DISMISSES the Petitioner for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF 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: May 30, 2025 QAM PCAMR IL Lots “Tame Chief United States District Judge