Rush v. Heckard

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

TERRANCE RUSH, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-cv-00368 WARDEN KATINA HECKARD, Respondent.

ORDER Pending are Petitioner Terrance Rush’s pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, [ECF 1], filed May 5, 2023, and Respondent Katina Heckard’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF 19], filed February 5, 2025.

I.

On May 8, 2023, this action was referred to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R [ECF 21] on February 24, 2025, finding that Mr. Rush’s Petition “must be denied as moot” because Mr. Rush had been released from BOP custody. [Id. at 2–3]. On May 6, 2025, the Court received Mr. Rush’s objections [ECF 33] to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn’s PF&R, in which he claimed that he had been re-incarcerated in a BOP facility. He provided no detail regarding his current incarceration, namely, whether it stems from a new conviction or is related to his federal sentence from Iowa. Accordingly, the Court declined to adopt the PF&R and referred the matter anew to the Magistrate Judge for further development of the record as necessary and submission of a new PF&R to address the change in circumstances.

On June 16, 2025, Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed a new PF&R [ECF 37], recommending that the Court grant Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF 19] and remove this matter from the Court’s docket.

II.

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 July 3, 2025. No objections were filed.

Il.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 37], GRANTS Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF 19], DISMISSES the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF 1], 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: July 14, 2025 QZ NV eae (HAM LOL Frank W. Volk “aame = Chief United States District Judge