From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thomas v. Young

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY
Mar 20, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-cv-1312 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 20, 2020)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-cv-1312

03-20-2020

DEWAYNE ALLEN THOMAS, Petitioner, v. D.L. YOUNG, Respondent.


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending is Respondent's request that Petitioner's petition be dismissed [Doc. 10] filed December 19, 2018. This action was previously referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation ("PF&R"). Magistrate Judge Eifert filed her PF&R on February 13, 2020. Magistrate Judge Eifert recommended that the Court grant Respondent's request for dismissal [Doc. 10], dismiss the Petition [Doc. 1], and remove this matter from the 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) (noting 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 March 2, 2020. No objections were filed.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 20], DISMISSES 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.

ENTERED: March 20, 2020

/s/_________

Frank W. Volk

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Thomas v. Young

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY
Mar 20, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-cv-1312 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 20, 2020)
Case details for

Thomas v. Young

Case Details

Full title:DEWAYNE ALLEN THOMAS, Petitioner, v. D.L. YOUNG, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

Date published: Mar 20, 2020

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-cv-1312 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 20, 2020)