UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

ALEC MATHEWS, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-cv-00086 KATINA HECKARD,

Respondent. ORDER Pending is Petitioner Alec Mathews’ Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under

and supporting documents [Docs. 1–3], filed February 6, 2023.1 This action was previously referred to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R on July 13, 2023. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court dismiss Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under

and remove this matter 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 28 U.S.C.

1 Also pending is Petitioner’s Objections to the Magistrate’s Order for Emergency Hearing [Doc. 18], filed on March 7, 2023. Inasmuch as Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn construed Petitioner’s Motion for Emergency Hearing as a supplement to the underlying Petition [see Doc. 9], considered the contents thereof, and promptly issued his PF&R, the Court FINDS Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn’s denial of Petitioner’s related Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 17] was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES AS MOOT Petitioner’s Objections [Doc. 18]. § 636(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). Upon the Petitioner’s motion, the Court extended the deadline to file objections. [Doc. 29]. Thus, objections in this case were due on August 14, 2023. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 26], DENIES Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under

[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: August 29, 2023

oh we my Frank W. Volk “ape” United States District Judge