UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY CALEB HOOKER, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-cv-00544 WARDEN,

Respondent. ORDER Pending are (1) Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF 1], filed October 3, 2024, and (2) Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF 8], filed November 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”). [ECF 3]. Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R [ECF 11] on March 14, 2025. Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended the Court deny as moot Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF 1] and Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF 8] and dismiss the matter from the docket. [ECF 11 at 3]. 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 March 31, 2025. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 11], DENIES AS MOOT Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF 1] and Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF 8], 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: April 21, 2025 i 7 A fella ras” Chief United States District Judge