Opinion
Civil Action 5:21-cv-000426
03-30-2022
MAURICE PARRISH, Petitioner. v. D.L. YOUNG, WARDEN, FCI Beckley, Respondent.
ORDER
FRANK W. VOLK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending is Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, filed July 30, 2021. [Doc. 1]. 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 issued an Order and Notice denying Petitioner's Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs on July 27, 2021. [Doc. 6]. Petitioner paid the filing fee. Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on December 14, 2021. Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended that the Court deny the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and remove the matter from the Court's docket. [Doc. 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).
Mr. Parrish filed a motion for extension of time to file objections. [Doc. 9]. The Court granted the motion, extending the objection deadline to March 18, 2022. [Doc. 10]. No. objections were filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 8], DISMISSES the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [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.