Boyes v. Ames

District Court, S.D. West Virginia

Boyes v. Ames

Trial Court Opinion

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

CHARLESTON DIVISION

TODD W. BOYES,

Petitioner,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-cv-01500

DONNIE AMES, Superintendent, Mount Olive Correctional Complex,

Respondent.

ORDER

Pending before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2254

filed by Petitioner Todd W. Boyes (“Petitioner”). (ECF No. 1.) By Standing Order filed in this case on December 11, 2018, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition (“PF&R”). (ECF No. 3.) Magistrate Judge Tinsley entered his PF&R on June 13, 2019, recommending that the Court dismiss Petitioner’s § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice. (ECF No. 6.) “The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 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,

474 U.S. 140, 150

(1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review.

28 U.S.C. § 636

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

889 F.2d 1363, 1366

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

727 F.2d 91, 94

(4th Cir. 1984). In addition, this Court need not conduct a 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 to the PF&R in this case were due on July 1, 2019. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No.6), DENIES Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (ECF No. 1), and DISMISSES this action. The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this action from the docket of the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: July 29, 2019

&

Reference

Status
Unknown