Sencheze D. Dunlap v. Warden, FCI Beckley

• Court: District Court, S.D. West Virginia
• Decided: November 7, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-00499
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

SENCHEZE D. DUNLAP, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-cv-00499 WARDEN, FCI BECKLEY,

Respondent. ORDER Pending is Petitioner Sencheze D. Dunlap’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1], filed March 19, 2025. 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 9, 2025. Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended that the Court dismiss this matter for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 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 [Doc. 9], DISMISSES this matter under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute, and REMOVES the case from the docket. 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

Frank W. Volk “Teme Chief United States District Judge