Ronald J. Rhoda v. F.C.I. Beckley Warden

• Court: District Court, S.D. West Virginia
• Decided: October 30, 2025
• Docket: 5:24-cv-00338
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

AT BECKLEY RONALD J. RHODA

Petitioner,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-cv-338

F.C.I. BECKLEY WARDEN

Respondent.

ORDER Pending are Petitioner Ronald J. Rhoda’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [ECF 1], filed July 8, 2024, and Respondent FCI Beckley Warden’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF 12], filed June 30, 2025. 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 September 2, 2025. [See ECF 13]. Magistrate Judge Reeder recommended that the Court grant Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF 12], dismiss the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, [ECF No. 1], and remove this matter from the docket of the Court. [ECF 13 at 7–8]. 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 September 19, 2025. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 13], GRANTS Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF 12], DISMISSES the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [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: October 30, 2025 Zi Cae new Vol “iar Chief United States District Judge