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
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BECKLEY
ANTONIO BROWN,
Petitioner,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-cv-00535
FCI BECKLEY WARDEN,
Respondent.
ORDER
Pending is Respondent FCI Beckley Warden’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the
Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 8], filed November 13, 2024. 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 May 28, 2025. [Doc. 13]. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the
Court grant Respondent’s Motion and remove the matter from the Court’s docket inasmuch as Mr.
Brown failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing his Petition. [Id. at 11]. Magistrate
Judge Aboulhosn further found that the merits of Mr. Brown’s claim also fail inasmuch 18 U.S.C.
§ 3624(g)(1) “explicitly prohibits the BOP from applying FSA credit unless an inmate has a
minimum or low-risk recidivism scores” and that Mr. Brown has not indicated he “successfully
petitioned the Warden for approval of transfer to prerelease custody or supervised release.” [Id. at
17–18]. On June 16, 2025, the Court received Mr. Brown’s objections [Doc. 14] to Magistrate
Judge Aboulhosn’s PF&R, in which he reasserted his claims.
II.
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).
“Importantly, objections need not be novel to be sufficiently specific.”
Elijah v. Dunbar, 66 F.4th 454, 460 (4th Cir. 2023). “[T]o preserve for appeal an issue in a
magistrate judge's report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with
sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection.”
United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007). “If the grounds for objection are
clear, district court judges must consider them de novo, or else run afoul of both § 636(b)(1) and
Article III.” Elijah, 66 F.4th at 460. 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).
2
Ii.
On June 16, 2025, Mr. Brown filed a Motion in Response to Respondent’s Order
to Show Cause. [ECF 14]. The Court construes this Motion as objections to the PF&R inasmuch
as it was filed after the PF&R’s entry.
Mr. Brown alleges that the Court should waive the exhaustion requirement
inasmuch as the remedy provided would be futile. [/d. at 2]. He further alleges the Bureau of
Prisons is misinterpreting the First Step Act statutes and unlawfully denying to apply his earned
time credits. [/d. at 3]. Accordingly, Mr. Brown simply recites various legal principles relating to
his allegations and does not direct the Court to any specific error to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn’s
PF&R. Therefore, Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn’s analysis is unblemished.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 37], GRANTS Respondent’s
Motion to Dismiss [ECF 19], DISMISSES the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF 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 23, 2025
Faull
a y Frank W. Volk
“ae Chief United States District Judge