BIGELOW v. SHANAHAN

Filing 16

ORDER signed by JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES on 11/05/2013, that Respondent's motion to dismiss this action (Doc. 7 ) is GRANTED and the Amended Petition (Doc. 3 ) is DISMISSED. A judgment dismissing this action will be ent ered contemporaneously with this Order. Finding no substantial issue for appeal concerning the denial of a constitutional right affecting the conviction, nor a debatable procedural ruling, a certificate of appealability is not issued. (Taylor, Abby)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

MAURICE L. BIGELOW,
Petitioner,
v.
KIERAN J. SHANAHAN,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:13-CV-490

ORDER
The Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge was filed with the Court in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and, on October 7, 2013, was served on the parties in this
action. (Doc. 13.) Petitioner thereafter filed a paper writing on October 18, 2013. (Doc. 15.)
The paper writing does not address the Recommendation in any specific way. See Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b)(2) (providing that “[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended
disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations.”). The district court is only required to review de novo those portions of the
report to which specific objections have been made, see 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1), and 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 judge's proposed findings and
recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir.1982); accord, Farmer v.
McBride, 177 F. App'x 327, 330-31 (4th Cir. 2006).
Despite the petitioner’s failure to object specifically as required by the Rules, the Court
has reviewed the paper writing filed by the defendant and will treat it as an objection. Upon

consideration, the Court finds the petitioner’s arguments to be frivolous and adopts the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation in full.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondent’s motion to dismiss this action (Doc.
7) is GRANTED and the Amended Petition (Doc. 3) is DISMISSED. A judgment dismissing
this action will be entered contemporaneously with this Order. Finding no substantial issue for
appeal concerning the denial of a constitutional right affecting the conviction, nor a debatable
procedural ruling, a certificate of appealability is not issued.
This the 5th day of November, 2013.

_______________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2