Jaylen Dalaino Bell v. Jackson County Circuit Court, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION

JAYLEN DALAINO BELL, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-cv-00155 JACKSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Petitioner Jaylen Delaino Bell’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 2). By Standing Order entered September 1, 2024, and filed in this case on March 12, 2025, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R, (ECF No. 7), on January 13, 2026, recommending that this Court FIND that, prior to filing the instant petition documents, Petitioner did not exhaust all available state court remedies through which he could present his federal claims for habeas corpus relief and, further, has now discharged his sentence and been released from custody; and DENY AS MOOT Petitioner’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, (ECF No. 1), and his Emergency Motion for Immediate Release and Review of Detention, (ECF No. 6), and DISMISS Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition and supplement, (ECF Nos. 2 and 6), without prejudice. (ECF No. 7 at 11.)

The Magistrate Judge further recommended that this Court FIND that the petition/complaint document fails to state a plausible claim for relief against any of the defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or otherwise under 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and, to the extent that Petitioner’s filings can be alternatively construed as a civil rights complaint, it is recommended that this Court DISMISS the same under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (Id. at 10 –11.)

The Court is not required to 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. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Petitioner’s right to appeal this Court’s Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). In addition, this Court need not conduct a 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 to the PF&R in this case were due on January 30, 2026. (ECF No. 7.) To date, no objections have been filed.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 7), DENIES AS MOOT Petitioner’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, (ECF No. 1), and his Emergency Motion for Immediate Release and Review of Detention, (ECF No. 6), and DISMISSES Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition and supplement, (ECF Nos. 2 and 6), without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.

ENTER: March 5, 2026 GE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE