UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

TERENCE DICKENS, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-cv-0051 WARDEN HOLZAPFEL,

Respondent. ORDER Pending is Petitioner Terence Dickens’ Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

[Doc. 1], filed February 1, 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 15, 2025. Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended that the Court deny as moot Mr. Dickens’ § 2241 Petition given his release from custody and dismiss 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,

, 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 November 3, 2025. No objections were filed. ! Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 10], DENIES AS MOOT Mr. Dickens’ § 2241 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1], and REMOVES this matter from the docket. The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: November 24, 2025

a a Bm? Frank W. Volk “me” Chief United States District Judge

' On October 16, 2025, a copy of the PF&R was mailed to Mr. Dickens at his last known address but was returned as undeliverable on November 3, 2025. [Doc. 11]. At this writing, the Bureau of Prisons’ Inmate Locator indicates Mr. Dickens was released from custody on September 25, 2025. Inasmuch as Mr. Dickens 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.