Bain v. Heckard

Filing 14

ORDER adopting the 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge Tinsley; DENYING AS MOOT the Petitioner's 1 Petition and Memorandum of Support; GRANTING the Respondent's 12 Motion to Dismiss; and DISMISSING the matter. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 6/4/2024. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (jsa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BECKLEY
TAMIEN DERRICK BAIN,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-cv-00346

HECKARD,
Respondent.
ORDER
Pending are (1) Tamien Derrick Bain’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ
of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1], filed on April 1, 2023, and (2) Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for
Mootness [Doc. 12], filed on March 15, 2024. 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”). [Doc. 3]. Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on May 6, 2024.
[Doc. 13]. Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended that the Court dismiss as moot the Petitioner’s
28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus Petition and dismiss it from the docket. [Id.]. The
PF&R provides that Mr. Bain was released on February 14, 2024, and that “Petitioner has been
released from BOP custody without any collateral consequences under the circumstances
presented; thus, this court cannot grant him his requested relief.” [Doc. 13 at 2].
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 May 23, 2024.
[Doc. 7]. No objections were filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 13], DENIES AS MOOT the
Petitioner’s Petition and Memorandum of Support [Doc. 1], GRANTS the Respondent’s Motion
to Dismiss [Doc. 12], 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.

ENTERED:

2

June 4,, 2024