UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

JUVAN BROWN, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-cv-00035 WARDEN W. HOLZAPFEL,

Respondent. ORDER Pending is Petitioner Juvan Brown’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

[Doc. 1], filed January 18, 2024, Mr. Brown’s Motion to Expunge a Juvenile Criminal Conviction [Doc. 4], filed January 25, 2024, and Warden Holzapfel’s Motion to Dismiss contained in the Warden’s response [Doc. 9], filed March 20, 2024. 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 June 5, 2024. Magistrate Judge Eifert recommended that the Court grant the Warden’s Motion to Dismiss, deny Mr. Brown’s § 2241 Petition, and Motion for Expungement, and that this case 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 June 24, 2024. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 11], GRANTS the Warden’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 9], DENIES Mr. Brown’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

[Doc. 1], and his motion for expungement [Doc. 4], 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, 2024 FoodN Vn as Frank W. Volk Wee United States District Judge