UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON

BARI MYRICKS,

Movant,

v. Case No. 2:20-cv-00631 Case No. 2:19-cr-00225-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending is Movant Bari Myricks’ pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (ECF 46) pursuant to

, filed September 24, 2020. This action was previously referred to the Honorable Cheryl A. Eifert, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Eifert filed her PF&R (ECF 68) on January 24, 2022, recommending that the court grant the Government’s request for dismissal, deny Mr. Myricks’ Section 2255 motion, and dismiss this civil action from the 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,

(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.”). 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 February 10, 2022. No objections were filed. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the findings made in the PF&R (ECF 68) are ADOPTED by the court and incorporated herein. It is further ORDERED that the Government’s request for

dismissal (ECF 53) is GRANTED, Mr. Myricks’ Section 2255 motion (ECF 46) is DENIED, and this civil action is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this order to all counsel of record and any unrepresented parties.

ENTER: March 1, 2022 se nll eee Jo . Copenhaver, Jr. Senior United States District Judge