Kidd v. Heckard

District Court, S.D. West Virginia

Kidd v. Heckard

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY ANGELO KIDD, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-cv-574 KATINA HECKARD, Respondent. ORDER Pending is Petitioner Angelo Kidd’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant

to

28 U.S.C. § 2241

[ECF 1], filed August 25, 2023. 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 [ECF 8], on November 13, 2023. Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended that the Court dismiss this matter for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 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 November 30, 2023. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 8], DISMISSES Mr. Kidd’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2241

[ECF 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. ENTER: December 12, 2023

Bela Gee United States District Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown