Mills v. Ames

District Court, S.D. West Virginia

Mills v. Ames

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

MARVIN STEVE MILLS,

Petitioner,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-cv-00801

DONNIE AMES, Superintendent, Mt. Olive Correctional Complex,

Respondent.

ORDER

Pending is Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss as Moot Due to Death. [Doc. 39]. This action was previously referred to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R on September 15, 2021 [Doc. 40]. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court grant Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss as Moot Due to Death [Doc. 39] and remove the matter from the Court’s docket. 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 originally due on September 29, 2021. [Doc. 40]. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 40], GRANTS the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss as Moot Due to Death [Doc. 39], 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. ENTER: October 18, 2021

Soe Qe De Ry Frank W. Volk “ems” United States District Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown