UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

VICTOR H. AUSTIN, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:21-cv-00054 D.L. YOUNG, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER Pending is Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1], filed January 21, 2021. This action was previously referred to the Honorable Dwane L. Tinsley, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). On April 16, 2021, Magistrate Judge Tinsley directed the Respondent to answer Petitioner’s allegations in his Petition and to show cause why the writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. [Doc. 5]. On April 26, 2021, the Respondent filed his response. [Doc. 6]. On September 23, 2021, the Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss. [Doc. 9]. On December 2, 2021, Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R. [Doc. 10]. Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended that the Court grant Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss and deny Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. 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 16, 2021. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 10], GRANTS Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 9], DISMISSES the Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [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: January 31, 2022

im United States District Judge