Opinion
Civil Action 5:23-cv-00581
02-27-2024
ERIC HICKS, Petitioner, v. WARDEN KATINA HECKARD, Respondent.
ORDER
Frank W. Volk United States District Judge
Pending are Petitioner Eric Hicks' Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Motion to Waive Requirement to Exhaust Administrative Remedies [Doc. 4], both filed August 29, 2023. 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 February 1, 2024. Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended that the Court deny Mr. Hicks' Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion to Waive Requirement to Exhaust Administrative Remedies and dismiss this matter from the 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 February 20, 2024. No objections were filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 14], DENIES Mr. Hicks' Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1] and Motion to Waive Requirement to Exhaust Administrative Remedies [Doc. 4], and DISMISSES this matter.
The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party.