UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

JESSE MICKLES, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-cv-00242 WARDEN HECKARD,

Respondent. ORDER Pending are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

[Doc. 1], filed May 31, 2022, and Respondent’s Response to Order to Show Cause seeking dismissal of the Petition [Doc. 8], filed July 28, 2022. 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 February 14, 2023. Magistrate Judge Eifert recommended that the Court grant the Respondent’s request for dismissal, dismiss the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, and remove this matter from the docket of the Court. [Doc. 11]. 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 March 3, 2023. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 11], GRANTS Respondent’s request for dismissal [Doc. 8], DISMISSES Petitioner’s Section 2241 Petition for 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: June 26, 2023

He Ry Frank W. Volk “Tens United States District Judge