Brian Lee Corbett v. United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON

BRIAN LEE CORBETT, Petitioner, v. Case No. 2:24-cv-00416 Case No. 2:10-cr-00015-01 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending is Petitioner Brian Lee Corbett’s Motion to Set Aside/Correct Sentence, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF 249).

This action was originally referred to the Honorable Cheryl A. Eifert, United States Magistrate Judge, and subsequently referred by Clerk’s Order to the Honorable Joseph K. Reeder, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Reeder filed his PF&R (ECF 265) on February 26, 2026.

Magistrate Judge Reeder recommended that the court deny the Motion, dismiss this action with prejudice, and remove this action from the court’s 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, 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).

Upon the Clerk’s remailing of the PF&R to Mr. Corbett on March 16, 2026, objections in this case were due on April 2, 2026. No objections were filed.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the findings made in the PF&R (ECF 265) be, and hereby are, ADOPTED by the court and incorporated herein. It is further ORDERED that Mr. Corbett’s Motion to Set Aside/Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF 249) be, and hereby it is, DENIED and this civil action be, and hereby it is, DISMISSED with prejudice and REMOVED from the docket.

The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this order to all counsel of record, any unrepresented parties, and the United States Magistrate Judge.

ENTER: April 10, 2026 nll ei Jo . Copenhaver, Jr. Senior United States District Judge