Lopez v. Heckard

Filing 10

ORDER The 9 Proposed Findings and Recommendation is ADOPTED; the 1 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED AS MOOT; this matter is REMOVED from the docket. Signed by Chief Judge Frank W. Volk on 9/24/2024. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (kew)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BECKLEY
BRANDON LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-cv-00313

WARDEN HOLZAPFEL,
Respondent.
ORDER
Pending is Petitioner Brandon Lopez’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1], filed August 3, 2022. 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 filed his PF&R on August 27, 2024.
Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended that the Court deny Mr. Lopez’s Petition as moot given
his release from custody 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 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 13,
2024. No objections were filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 9], DENIES AS MOOT Mr.
Lopez’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1], and REMOVES
this matter from the docket.
The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record
and any unrepresented party.
ENTER: September 24, 2024

2