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.”
How later courts described this case
- 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.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BECKLEY
JUVAN BROWN,
Petitioner,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-cv-00035
WARDEN W. HOLZAPFEL,
Respondent.
ORDER
Pending is Petitioner Juvan Brown’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1], filed January 18, 2024, Mr. Brown’s Motion to Expunge a Juvenile
Criminal Conviction [Doc. 4], filed January 25, 2024, and Warden Holzapfel’s Motion to Dismiss
contained in the Warden’s response [Doc. 9], filed March 20, 2024. This action was previously
referred to the Honorable Cheryl A. Eifert, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of
proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Eifert filed her PF&R on
June 5, 2024. Magistrate Judge Eifert recommended that the Court grant the Warden’s Motion to
Dismiss, deny Mr. Brown’s § 2241 Petition, and Motion for Expungement, and that this case be
dismissed and removed from the docket of the court.
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 June 24, 2024.
No objections were filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 11], GRANTS the Warden’s
Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 9], DENIES Mr. Brown’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1], and his motion for expungement [Doc. 4], 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: June 26, 2024
FoodN Vn
as Frank W. Volk
Wee United States District Judge