Gates v. Holzapfel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY CHARLES GATES, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-cv-00385 WARDEN W. HOLZAPFEL, Respondent.

ORDER Pending are Petitioner Charles Gates’ Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF 1] and Motion for Jail Time Credit and Concurrent Sentences [ECF 2], filed July 26, 2024. 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 [ECF 19] on February 10, 2025. Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommends that the Court (1) find that, having now received a nunc pro tunc designation, Mr. Gates has received the prior custody credit he sought and that his sentence has been properly executed under 18 U.S.C. § 3585, (2) deny as moot Mr. Gates’ § 2241 petition [ECF 1] and Motion for Jail Time Credit and Concurrent Sentences [ECF 2], and (3) dismiss this civil action 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, 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 February 27, 2025.

No objections were filed.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 19], FINDS that, having now received a nunc pro tunc designation, Mr. Gates has received the prior custody credit he sought and that his sentence has been properly executed under 18 U.S.C. § 3585, DENIES as moot Mr. Gates’ § 2241 petition [ECF 1] and Motion for Jail Time Credit and Concurrent Sentences [ECF 2], and DISMISSES this matter.

The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party.

ENTER: February 28, 2025 @ Zi Coane Frank W. Volk “ame = Chief United States District Judge