Juvan James Brown v. Warden W. Holzapfel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY JUVAN JAMES BROWN, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-cv-616

WARDEN W. HOLZAPFEL, Respondent.

ORDER Pending is Petitioner Juvan James Brown’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [ECF 1], filed October 28, 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 23, 2026. [See ECF 10]. Magistrate Judge Reeder recommended that the Court dismiss Mr. Brown’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as moot inasmuch as he was released from custody on December 9, 2025. [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 May 11, 2026.

No objections were filed.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 10], DISMISSES AS MOOT the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [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: June 25, 2026 Felli cu PY =Chief United States District Judge