Bell v. Warden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON JAYLEN DALAINO BELL, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-cv-00233 WARDEN, South Central Regional Jail and Correctional Facility, Defendant.

ORDER Pending is Defendant Warden’s Motion to Dismiss, [Doc. 14], filed on August 6, 2024. This action was previously referred to the Honorable Joseph K. Reeder, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). [Doc.

3]. On August 7, 2024, the Court ordered the Petitioner to respond to the Motion to Dismiss within sixty days. [Doc. 15]. Mr. Bell did not respond. On January 7, 2025, Magistrate Judge Reederfiled his PF&R, [Doc. 19], recommending that the Court grant Defendant’s motion and remove this matter from the Court’s 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, 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 Plaintiff’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 January 24, 2025.

No objections were filed.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 19], GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 14], 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.

ENTERED: January 29, 2025 Frank W. Volk “ie” Chief United States District Judge ' On September 24, 2024, the Clerk’s Office received a notification of “Mail Returned as Undeliverable” and it provided that Mr. Bell was no longer in custody. [Docs. 16, 17]. Mr. Bell is obligated to provide the Clerk’s Office with any change in address -- even upon release. No other mail has been returned as of the date of this filing.