UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

PATRICK ANDREW DONALD, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:21-cv-00538 D. L. YOUNG,

Respondent. ORDER Pending are Petitioner Patrick Donald’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1], filed September 21, 2021, and Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 12], filed October 20, 2021. 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 on April 18, 2022. Magistrate Judge Eifert recommended that the Court deny the Petition [Doc. 1]; grant the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 12]; and the matter be dismissed and removed from the docket of the Court. 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 May 5, 2022. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 15], DENIES Mr. Donald’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1], GRANTS the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 12], 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: May 25, 2022

Gis United States District Judge