Nicholas Ferrone v. Warden Holzapfel

S.D. West Virginia

Nicholas Ferrone v. Warden Holzapfel

DecidedNovember 7, 2025

Docket5:24-cv-00557

StatusUnknown

This text of Nicholas Ferrone v. Warden Holzapfel (Nicholas Ferrone v. Warden Holzapfel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. West Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nicholas Ferrone v. Warden Holzapfel, (S.D.W. Va. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

NICHOLAS FERRONE, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-cv-00557 WARDEN HOLZAPFEL,

Respondent. ORDER Pending is Petitioner Nicholas Ferrone’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF 1], filed October 9, 2024. This action was previously referred to the Honorable Dwane L. Tinsley, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on October 10, 2025. [ECF 4]. Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended the Court dismiss Mr. Ferrone’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus as moot. 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 October 27, 2025. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 4], DISMISSES the Petition for a 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: November 7, 2025

“ams” Chief United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

NICHOLAS FERRONE, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-cv-00557 WARDEN HOLZAPFEL,

Respondent. ORDER Pending is Petitioner Nicholas Ferrone’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF 1], filed October 9, 2024. This action was previously referred to the Honorable Dwane L. Tinsley, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on October 10, 2025. [ECF 4]. Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended the Court dismiss Mr. Ferrone’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus as moot. 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 October 27, 2025. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 4], DISMISSES the Petition for a 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: November 7, 2025

“ams” Chief United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Nicholas Ferrone v. Warden Holzapfel, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nicholas-ferrone-v-warden-holzapfel-wvsd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack