Walker v. Warden

Filing 6

ORDER adopting the 4 Proposed Findings and Recommendations, dismissing without prejudice Mr. Walker's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for his failure to prosecute, and removing this matter from the docket. Signed by Chief Judge Frank W. Volk on 9/24/2024. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (btm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BECKLEY
JASON WALKER,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-cv-00553

FCI BECKLEY WARDEN,
Respondent.
ORDER
Pending is Petitioner Jason Walker’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1], filed August 17, 2023. 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 July
29, 2024. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court dismiss Mr. Walker’s Petition
without prejudice given his failure to prosecute this civil action 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 August 15, 2024.
No objections were filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 4], DISMISSES WITHOUT
PREJUDICE Mr. Walker’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc.
1] pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for his failure to prosecute, 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