From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hillberry v. Ballard

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Sep 3, 2014
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-20699 (S.D.W. Va. Sep. 3, 2014)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-20699

09-03-2014

ROY F. HILLBERRY, II, Plaintiff, v. DAVID BALLARD, Defendant.


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Roy Hillberry, II, pro se, an inmate at the Mount Olive Correctional Complex ("prison") in Mount Olive, West Virginia, filed a Petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [ECF 1]. In his Petition, Plaintiff raises several challenges to the constitutionality of the prison's administrative segregation unit.

By Standing Order entered on April 8, 2013, and filed in this case on July 25, 2014, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (PF&R) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Eifert filed a PF&R on April 24, 2014 [ECF 5]. In that filing, the magistrate judge recommended that this Court dismiss Petitioner's Petition without prejudice.

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." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court is not, however, 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). In addition, this Court need not conduct a de novo review when a petitioner "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 were due March 27, 2014. To date no objections have been filed.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 5], DISMISSES the Petition WITHOUT PREJUDICE [ECF 1], and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the Court's docket.

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: September 3, 2014

/s/_________

THOMAS E. JOHNSTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Hillberry v. Ballard

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Sep 3, 2014
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-20699 (S.D.W. Va. Sep. 3, 2014)
Case details for

Hillberry v. Ballard

Case Details

Full title:ROY F. HILLBERRY, II, Plaintiff, v. DAVID BALLARD, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION

Date published: Sep 3, 2014

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-20699 (S.D.W. Va. Sep. 3, 2014)

Citing Cases

Hillberry v. Ballard

Hillberry did not file objections to the findings of fact or the recommendation. Accordingly, the presiding…