UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

(CHIEF) COL. MICHAEL S. OWL FEATHER-GORBEY, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-cv-00183 WARDEN HECKARD, FCI Beckley,

Respondent. ORDER Pending are Petitioner Michal S. Owl Feather-Gorbey’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under § 2241 [Doc. 1-1], filed in the Circuit Court of Raleigh County on March 16, 2022, and removed on April 14, 2022, Respondent Warden Heckard’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 3], filed April 22, 2022, and Petitioner Michael S. Owl Feather-Gorbey’s Motion to Remand [Doc. 4], filed May 16, 2022. 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”). Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on January 31, 2023. Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended that the Court grant Warden Heckard’s Motion to Dismiss, deny Mr. Feather- Gorbey’s Motion to Remand, dismiss Mr. Feather-Gorbey’s Section 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and remove this matter 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.” (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 February 17, 2023. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 5], GRANTS Warden Heckard’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 3], DENIES Mr. Feather-Gorbey’s Motion to Remand [Doc. 4], DISMISSES Mr. Feather-Gorbey’s Section 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1- 1], 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: March 1, 2023

oo fj Frank W. Volk “Sie United States District Judge