IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD

GARY DICKENS,

Petitioner,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-00473

WARDEN ROKOSKY,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

By Standing Order, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of findings of fact and recommendations (“PF&R”) regarding disposition pursuant to

(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Tinsley submitted to the court his Findings and Recommendation on July 10, 2024, in which he recommended that the district court dismiss petitioner’s pursuant to

petition and remove this matter from the court’s docket. In accordance with the provisions of

(b), the parties were allotted fourteen days, plus three mailing days, in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge Tinsley’s Findings and Recommendation. The failure of any party to file such objections constitutes a waiver of such party's right to a de novo review by this court. Snyder v. Ridenour,

(4th Cir. 1989). Dickens timely filed objections to the PF&R. See ECF No. 14. 1 Much of the analysis in the PF&R starts with the premise that Dickens had not filed a Motion under

. In his petition, Dickens did not indicate to the court that he had done so. In his Proposed Findings and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended that the court dismiss Dickens’s petition, at least in part, because he had not filed a Motion under

. Having conducted a de novo review of the record, the court finds that it appears that Dickens has filed a Motion under

. See ECF No. 14-1; see also Court Exhibit attached hereto. For this reason, the court RECOMMITS this matter to Magistrate Judge Tinsley for a revised PF&R based upon the foregoing. The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to plaintiff, pro se, counsel of record, and Magistrate Judge Tinsley. IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of September, 2025. BNTER: Rauiel A Dads David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge