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

BECKLEY DIVISION

CLEVON DOUGLAS MURRAY,

Petitioner,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-cv-06099 (Criminal No. 5:11-cr-00213)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On May 18, 2016, the Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a Motion for Relief under the Johnson/Welch Cases as to the Armed Career Criminal Act (Document 86, filed in 5:11-cr-00213). On July 7, 2016, the Court entered an Order and Notice (Document 87) finding that the Petitioner’s filing should be construed as a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence, pursuant to

. Consistent with the Court’s Order and Notice, the Clerk re-docketed the Petitioner’s pleading (Document 86) as a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence, pursuant to

(Document 88).1 By Standing Order (Document 89) entered on July 7, 2016, this action was referred to the Honorable Dwane L. Tinsley, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission to this Court of

1In its Order and Notice (Document 87), the Court ordered the Petitioner to notify the Court by August 1, 2016, if he had any objection to the re-characterization of his motion as a § 2255 motion. On July 20, 2016, the Petitioner filed a response (Document 92) advising that he did not oppose the same. 1 proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition, pursuant to

. On September 17, 2018, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 93) wherein it is recommended that the Petitioner’s Motion for Relief under the Johnson/Welch Cases as to the Armed Career Criminal Act (Document 86) be denied, that the Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence, pursuant to

(Document 88) be denied, and that this matter be dismissed from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by October 4, 2018.2 Neither party has timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation. 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,

(1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Petitioner’s right to appeal this Court’s Order.

(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour,

(4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce,

(4th Cir. 1984).

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS that the Petitioner’s Motion for Relief under the Johnson/Welch Cases as to the Armed Career Criminal Act (Document 86) be DENIED, that the Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence, pursuant to

(Document 88) be DENIED, and that this matter be DISMISSED from the Court’s docket.

2The docket reflects that the Proposed Findings and Recommendation mailed to the Petitioner was returned as undeliverable on October 3, 2018. 2 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge Tinsley, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: October 9, 2018

IRENE C. 2S q UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA