UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

AT BECKLEY

THOMAS JEFFERSON CHURCH, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-cv-00451

FCI BECKLEY WARDEN HOLZAPFEL,

Respondent. ORDER Pending is the pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under

, filed August 26, 2024, by Petitioner Thomas Jefferson Church, [ECF 1], and Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, [ECF 11], filed November 8, 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 July 25, 2025. [ECF 18]. Magistrate Judge Reeder recommended that the Court grant Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss and remove the matter from the Court’s docket inasmuch as Mr. Church failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing his Petition and “has not demonstrated any facts supporting a finding that the administrative remedy process was futile.” [Id. at 11]. Moreover, Magistrate Judge Reeder observed Mr. Church “received the proper prior custody credit,” “his sentences have been properly executed,” and “there is no basis for any additional credit . . . to his federal sentence.” [Id. at 13–14]. 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,

, 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,

(4th Cir. 1982). Objections in this case were due on August 11, 2025. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, [ECF 18], DENIES as MOOT Petitioner’s Letter-Form Motion to Amend the Petition, [ECF 17], GRANTS Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, [ECF 11], DISMISSES the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, [ECF 1], and DISMISSES the matter. Additionally, in the alternative, the Court GRANTS Respondent’s alternative Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF 11], DENIES the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under

, [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 5, 2025 4 oth Came Frank W. Volk “ame Chief United States District Judge