IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

CHARLESTON DIVISION

ROGER PRINGLE,

Petitioner,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-cv-00050

MARK SEVIER,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court are Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under

, (ECF No. 1), and Petition for Order Waiving Filing Fees and Court Costs, (ECF No. 2). By Standing Order filed in this case on January 16, 2018, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition (“PF&R”). (ECF No. 5.) Magistrate Judge Tinsley entered his PF&R on July 2, 2018, recommending that the Court find that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Petitioner’s court of conviction and that it is not the proper venue for consideration of Petitioner’s habeas claims concerning his Indiana conviction and sentence. (ECF No. 6 at 4.) Based on these proposed findings, the PF&R further recommends that the Court dismiss without prejudice the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, (ECF No. 1), and deny as moot the Petition for Order Waiving Filing Fees and Court Costs, (ECF No. 2). (ECF No. 6 at 5.) The Court is not required to 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. Thomas vy. Arn,

(1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and a party’s right to appeal this Court’s Order.

(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour,

(4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce,

(4th Cir. 1984). In addition, this Court need not conduct a 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,

(4th Cir. 1982). To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 6), DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under

, (ECF No. 1), and DENIES AS MOOT the Petition for Order Waiving Filing Fees and Court Costs, (ECF No. 2). The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this action from the docket of the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: October 4, 2018

Ek THOMAS E. JOHNSTON, CHIEF JUDGE