UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

JOSEPH NOFFLETT, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-cv-00251 WARDEN, FCI BECKLEY,

Respondent. ORDER Pending are Petitioner Joseph Nofflett’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, [ECF 1], filed May 16, 2024, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment and Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, [ECF 19, 20], filed November 4, 2024, and Petitioner’s Letter-Form Motion to be Granted Relief, [ECF 24], filed November 18, 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”). Magistrate Judge Reeder filed his PF&R on August 1, 2025. Magistrate Judge Reeder recommended the Court grant Respondent’s motion, deny the petition in this matter, and remove this matter from the 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,

(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 August 18, 2025. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 35], GRANTS Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, 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: September 2, 2025 Ford Cenk Frank W. Volk “Tams Chief United States District Judge