UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

MICHAEL RANKINS,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:21-cv-00500

D. L. YOUNG,

Defendant.

ORDER Pending is Plaintiff Michael Rankins’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

[Doc. 1], construed by the Court as a Complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,

(1971) [Docs. 3, 4]. On November 12, 2021, Plaintiff moved for dismissal of the matter pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [Doc. 7]. The matter was previously referred to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia. Judge Aboulhosn filed his Proposed Findings and Recommendations (“PF&R”) on November 15, 2021. Judge Aboulhosn recommended the Court construe Plaintiff’s motion as filed pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, grant Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, dismiss the Petition and Complaint without prejudice, and remove the matter from the Court’s docket. [Doc. 8]. 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,

(1985); see also

(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

(b)(1); see also United States v. De Leon- Ramirez,

(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,

(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,

(4th Cir. 1982). Objections in this case were due on December 2, 2021. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 8], construes Mr. Rankins’s Motion to Dismiss as one brought pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and GRANTS the same [Doc. 7], DISMISSES the Petition and Complaint [Does. 1, 4] without prejudice, and removes this matter from the docket. The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: January 25, 2022 Qe SS ; ny Frank W. Volk “cas United States District Judge