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
MICHAEL ANTHONY BROWN,
Petitioner,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-cv-00606
WARDEN W. HOLZAPFEL, ET AL.,
Respondents.
ORDER
Pending are Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for
Summary Judgment [ECF 49], and Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay. [ECF 67].
This action was previously referred to the Honorable Joseph K. Reeder, United
States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”).
Magistrate Judge Reeder filed his PF&R on August 1, 2025. Magistrate Judge Reeder
recommended the Court grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for
Summary Judgment [ECF 49]; Deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay [ECF 67]; Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint [ECF 32] with prejudice; and remove this case from the court’s 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 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 August 18, 2025.
No objections were filed.!
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 68], DENIES Plaintiffs
Motion to Stay [ECF 67], Dismisses Plaintiffs Amended Complaint [ECF 32] with prejudice,
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: September 8, 2025
“ims Chief United States District Judge
' On August 11, 2025, Mr. Brown filed a Motion for Reproduction of Documents. The
Court could not locate any of the requested documents on the docket. In the event Mr. Brown
identifies the documents he seeks with specificity, the Court will resend those documents so that
Mr. Brown may draft a Rule 60(b) motion. If Mr. Brown chooses to so move, the Court is willing
to reconsider the matter.