Kawczynski v. United States

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

CHARLESTON DIVISION

ASHLEY KAWCZYNSKI,

Petitioner,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-cv-00578 (Criminal No. 2:22-cr-00160)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

ORDER

Before the Court is Petitioner Ashley Kawczynski’s (“Petitioner”) Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence. (ECF No. 111.) By standing order, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition (“PF&R”). (ECF No. 112.) On September 5, 2025, Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed a PF&R recommending Petitioner’s motion be denied. (ECF No. 128.) This Court is not required to 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. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). In addition, this Court need not conduct a 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 to the PF&R were due on September 22, 2025. (ECF No. 128.) To date, Petitioner has not filed any objections, thereby waiving de novo review of the PF&R. Accordingly, this Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 128), and DENIES Petitioner’s motion. (ECF No. 111.) The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to REMOVE this case from the active docket. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: October 1, 2025

GE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE