From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Anderson v. Holzapfel

United States District Court, Southern District of West Virginia
Aug 8, 2024
Civil Action 5:23-cv-00490 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 8, 2024)

Opinion

Civil Action 5:23-cv-00490

08-08-2024

DEWAYNE ANDERSON, Petitioner, v. FCI BECKLEY WARDEN W. HOLZAPFEL, Respondent.


ORDER

FRANK W. VOLK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pending is Petitioner Dewayne Anderson's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1], filed July 20, 2023. This action was previously referred to the Honorable Cheryl A. Eifert, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Eifert filed her PF&R on July 12, 2024. Magistrate Judge Eifert recommended that the Court dismiss Mr. Anderson's Petition as moot and remove 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 July 29, 2024. No objections were filed.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 12], DISMISSES AS MOOT Mr. Anderson's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 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.


Summaries of

Anderson v. Holzapfel

United States District Court, Southern District of West Virginia
Aug 8, 2024
Civil Action 5:23-cv-00490 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 8, 2024)
Case details for

Anderson v. Holzapfel

Case Details

Full title:DEWAYNE ANDERSON, Petitioner, v. FCI BECKLEY WARDEN W. HOLZAPFEL…

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of West Virginia

Date published: Aug 8, 2024

Citations

Civil Action 5:23-cv-00490 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 8, 2024)