Hill v. Young

District Court, S.D. West Virginia

Hill v. Young

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

AT BECKLEY

BRANDEN K. HILL,

Petitioner,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-cv-01283

D.L. YOUNG, Warden, FCI Beckley,

Respondent.

ORDER Pending is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (titled as Memorandum in Support of Motion Pursuant to Title

28 U.S.C. Section 2241

) [Doc. 1], filed September 7, 2018. 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 May 27, 2020. Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended that the Court dismiss the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) as the action fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. 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) (emphasis added) (“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.”). 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 November 9, 2020. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 8], DENIES the Petition [Doc. 1], and DISMISSES the matter. The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party herein. ENTERED: November 19, 2020 @ ela Oe my Frank W. Volk “tems” United States District Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown