UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

DARNELLE JONES, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-cv-00362 W. HOLZAPFEL,

Respondent. ORDER Pending are Petitioner Darnelle Jones’ (1) Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

[Doc. 1], filed June 2, 2025, and (2) Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 10], filed July 28, 2025. 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 16, 2025. Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended that the Court deny without prejudice Mr. Jones’ § 2241 Petition and Motion for Summary Judgment, transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana for further consideration in Case No. 1:24-cr-00112-SEB-MG, 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,

(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. 13], DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Mr. Jones’ § 2241 Petition [Doc. 1] and Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 10], TRANSFERS this matter to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana for further consideration in Case No. 1:24-cr-00112-SEB-MG, 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

“ie = Chief United States District Judge