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 JAMES BROWN,
Petitioner,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-cv-00062
WARDEN W. HOLZAPFEL,
Respondent.
ORDER
Pending is Petitioner Juvan James Brown’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1], filed February 8, 2024, and Warden Holzapfel’s Motion to
Dismiss contained in the Warden’s response [Doc. 8], filed March 13, 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 6, 2024. Magistrate Judge Eifert recommended that the Court grant the
Warden’s Motion to Dismiss, deny Mr. Brown’s § 2241 Petition, 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. 10], GRANTS the Warden’s
Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 8], DENIES Mr. Brown’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 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: July 1, 2024
Ferdi
a y Frank W. Volk
“Ueno United States District Judge