Tristian Royal O'Kelley v. Warden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY TRISTIAN ROYAL O'KELLEY, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-cv-00736 WARDEN, Respondent.

ORDER Pending is Petitioner Tristian O’Kelley’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [ECF 1], filed December 26, 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 April 22, 2026. Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended the Court deny Mr. O’Kelley’s Petition as moot inasmuch as he has been released from federal custody. [ECF 10 at 1–3].

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 May 11, 2026.

No objections were filed.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 10], DENIES AS MOOT the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF 1], and DISMISSES the matter.

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

ENTER: May 26, 2026 “tems” Chief United States District Judge