Law v. Hecknard

Filing 14

ORDER adopting the 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendations, dismissing as moot Mr. Law's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), and dismissing the matter. Signed by Chief Judge Frank W. Volk on 9/23/2024. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (btm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BECKLEY
JAMES LAW,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-cv-00041

HECKNARD,
Respondent.
ORDER
Pending is Petitioner James Law’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1], filed January 24, 2022. This action was previously referred to the
Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed
findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R on August
29, 2024. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court dismiss Mr. Law’s Section
2241 Petition and remove this matter from the Court’s 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 LeonRamirez, 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 September 16,
2024. No objections were filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R Doc. 13, DISMISSES AS MOOT
Mr. Law’s Petition for 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.
ENTER: September 23, 2024

2