Hill v. Haynes et al

Filing 98

ORDER denying 80 Motion for Declaratory Judgment filed by Demetrius Hill; adopting 95 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Chief Judge John Preston Bailey on 6/13/11. (njz)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MARTINSBURG

DEMETRIUS HILL,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:06-CV-136
(BAILEY)

WARDEN HAYNES,
A W GILL, WARDEN DRIVER,
CAPT. ODDO, LT. CLEMENS,
LT. GIFFORD, LT. TRAIT,
C.O. SPOTLAN, FOSTER,
C.O. MORGAN, COUNSELOR
MORRERO, and ETRIS,
Respondents.

ORDER ADOPTING AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of the
Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge John S. Kaull. By
Standing Order entered on March 24, 2000, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge
Kaull for submission of a proposed report and a recommendation (“R & R”). Magistrate
Judge Kaull filed his R & R on May 12, 2011 [Doc. 91]. The magistrate judge then filed an
Amended R & R on May 19, 2011. In that filing, the magistrate judge recommended that
this Court deny plaintiff’s Motion for Declaratory Relief [Doc. 80].
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1) (c), this Court is required to make a de novo
review of those portions of the magistrate judge’s findings to which objection is made.
However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the

1

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, failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo
review and the petitioner's right to appeal this Court's Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce,
727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). Here, objections to Magistrate Judge Kaull’s R & R were
due within ten (10) days of receipt of the R & R, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The docket shows Darrel W. Ringer, counsel for the plaintiff, received
electronic notice of the filing of the Amended R & R on May 19, 2011. Neither party filed
objections to the R & R. Accordingly, this Court will review the report and recommendation
for clear error.
Upon careful review of the R & R, it is the opinion of this Court that the Magistrate
Judge’s Amended Report and Recommendation [Doc. 95] should be, and is, hereby
ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge’s report.
Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s Motion for Declaratory Relief [Doc. 80].
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record herein.
DATED: June 13, 2011

2