Dominic England v. Warden Holzapfel, FCI Beckley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY DOMINIC ENGLAND, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-cv-00618 WARDEN HOLZAPFEL, FCI Beckley, Respondent.

ORDER Pending is Petitioner Dominic England’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF 1], filed October 28, 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”).

Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on October 14, 2025. [ECF 17]. Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended the Court dismiss Mr. England’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus as moot.

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 October 31, 2025.

No objections were filed.' Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 17], DISMISSES the Petition for a 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: November 7, 2025 CQawiiy Frank W. Volk ies == Chief United States District Judge ' On October 14, 2025, a copy of the PF&R was mailed to Dominic England at Beckley Federal Correctional Institution but was returned as undeliverable on October 23, 2025. [ECF 18].

At this writing, the Bureau of Prisons’ Inmate Locator indicates Mr. England was released from custody on March 12, 2025. Inasmuch as Mr. England has failed to keep the Court apprised of his current address as required by Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.5, this matter is ripe for adjudication.