Opinion
Civil Action 5:21-cv-00132
07-05-2022
ORDER
Frank W. Volk United States District Judge
Pending is Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 2], filed February 25, 2021. 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 June 2, 2022, and recommended the Court grant the Respondent's requests for dismissal, deny the Petition, and remove the matter from the docket. [Doc. 32].
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 objection.”); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989). Furth conduct de novo review when a party “makes general and conclusory objecti the Court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recomm v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Objections in this case were d No objections were filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 32], GR requests for dismissal [Docs. 7, 16], DISMISSES the Petition for Writ of 2], and DISMISSES the matter.
The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to and any unrepresented party.