Turner v. Heckard

Filing 11

ORDER adopting the 10 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge Tinsley; granting Respondent's 9 MOTION to Dismiss Petition; denying as moot Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241; and dismissing the matter. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 11/13/2023. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (jsa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BECKLEY
MILIK TURNER,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-cv-00175

KATINA HECKARD,
Respondent.
ORDER
Pending are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
[ECF 1], filed on April 11, 2022, and Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petition [ECF 9], filed on
August 2, 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 his PF&R on October 13, 2023. Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended
that the Court find Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition is now moot due to his release from BOP custody,
grant Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petition, deny as moot Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and dismiss 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 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 October 30, 2023.
No objections were filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 10], GRANTS Respondent’s
Motion to Dismiss Petition [ECF 9], DENIES as moot Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [ECF 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: November 13, 2023

2