Millner v. Warden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY CLYDE MILLNER, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:21-cv-00624 WARDEN, FCI BENNETTSVILLE, Respondent.

ORDER Pending is Petitioner Clyde Millner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [ECF 1], filed December 1, 2021, and amended [ECF 7] on January 11, 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 December 10, 2024, [ECF 17], recommending that the Court deny the Petition as moot and dismiss this action due to Petitioner’s release from Bureau of Prisons’ custody without collateral consequences.

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, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see also 28 U.S.C. § 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 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. De Leon- Ramirez, 925 F.3d 177, 181 (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, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (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, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Objections in this case were due on December 27, 2024. No objections were filed.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 17], DISMISSES as moot the § 2241 Petition [ECF 1], as amended [ECF 7], 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: December 30, 2024 Cy Zila Swami: rank W. Volk < y= =6Chief United States District Judge