Timothy James Langford v. Warden Holzapfel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

TIMOTHY JAMES LANGFORD, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-cv-00427

WARDEN HOLZAPFEL, Respondent.

ORDER Pending is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [ECF 1], filed August 19, 2024. This action was previously referred 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 on April 6, 2026. [See ECF 9]. Magistrate Judge Reeder recommended that the Court find Petitioner has failed to prosecute this action and dismiss without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). [Id. at 4–5].

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 April 23, 2026.

No objections were filed.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 9] and DISMISSES the matter without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b).

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

ENTER: May 4, 2026 @ ela Chief United States District Judge