Glawson v. Saad

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by Chief Judge Gina M. Groh on 8/30/2018. Copy sent certified mail, return receipt to pro se Petitioner.(tlg) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/30/2018: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (tlg).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MARTINSBURG
RICHARD B. GLAWSON,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:17-CV-75
(GROH)

JENNIFER SAAD, Warden,
Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Currently before the Court is an Amended Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
entered by United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble on June 14, 2018. ECF
No. 9. Pursuant to Rule 2 of the Local Rules of Prisoner Litigation Procedure, this action
was referred to Magistrate Judge Trumble for submission of an R&R. Therein, Magistrate
Judge Trumble recommends that this Court deny the Petitioner’s § 2241 petition and
dismiss the same without prejudice. The Petitioner timely filed objections to the R&R on
June 21, 2018. ECF No. 11. Accordingly, this matter is now ripe for adjudication.
I. BACKGROUND
On June 28, 2017, Darryl Boynes, Jr. (“Petitioner”), filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. In his petition, the Petitioner’s only
ground asks the question, “Did the United States District Court lack Subject – Matter
Jurisdiction to indict, prosecute, or execute a sentence of Life plus 480 months?” Id. at.5.

Upon reviewing the record, the Court finds that the facts as explained in the R&R
accurately and succinctly describe the circumstances underlying the Petitioner’s claims.
For ease of review, the Court incorporates those facts herein; however, it will briefly
outline the most relevant facts of this case.
The Petitioner was convicted of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, distribution
of crack cocaine and use of a firearm to commit murder in furtherance of a drug trafficking
crime—a capital offense. See United States v. Boynes, 515 F.3d 284, 285 (4th Cir. 2008).
The District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia sentenced the Petitioner to serve a
life sentence plus 480 months of incarceration. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the Petitioner’s
conviction, and the District Court denied Petitioner’s § 2255 Motion to vacate.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
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
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). Further, 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). Pursuant to this Court’s local rules, “written objections shall identify
each portion of the magistrate judge’s recommended disposition that is being challenged
and shall specify the basis for each objection.” LR PL P 12(b). The local rules also
prohibit objections that “exceed ten (10) typewritten pages or twenty (20) handwritten

2

pages, including exhibits, unless accompanied by a motion for leave to exceed the page
limitation.” LR PL P 12(d).
“When a party does make objections, but these objections are so general or
conclusory that they fail to direct the district court to any specific error by the magistrate
judge, de novo review is unnecessary.” Green v. Rubenstein, 644 F. Supp. 2d 723, 730
(S.D. W. Va. 2009) (citing Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982)). “When
only a general objection is made to a portion of a magistrate judge’s reportrecommendation, the Court subjects that portion of the report-recommendation to only a
clear error review.”

Williams v. New York State Div. of Parole, No. 9:10-CV-1533

(GTS/DEP), 2012 WL 2873569, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. July 12, 2012). “Similarly, when an
objection merely reiterates the same arguments made by the objecting party in its original
papers submitted to the magistrate judge, the Court subjects that portion of the reportrecommendation challenged by those arguments to only a clear error review.” Taylor v.
Astrue, 32 F. Supp. 3d 253, 260-61 (N.D.N.Y. 2012).
Courts have also held that when a party’s objection lacks adequate specificity, the
party waives that objection. See Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766
(2d Cir. 2002) (finding that even though a party filed objections to the magistrate judge’s
R&R, they were not specific enough to preserve the claim for review). Bare statements
“devoid of any reference to specific findings or recommendations . . . and unsupported by
legal authority, [are] not sufficient.” Mario 313 F.3d at 766. Pursuant to the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules, “referring the court to previously filed
papers or arguments does not constitute an adequate objection.” Id.; See also Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b); LR PL P 12. Finally, the Fourth Circuit has long held, “[a]bsent objection,

3

we do not believe that any explanation need be given for adopting [an R&R].” Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983) (finding that without an objection, no explanation
whatsoever is required of the district court when adopting an R&R).
III. DISCUSSION
Upon review of all the filings in this matter, the Court finds that the Petitioner has
presented no new material facts or arguments in his objections to the magistrate judge’s
R&R. The Petitioner wholly fails to address the magistrate judge’s determination that the
petition is a second or successive § 2255 motion disguised as a § 2241 petition. Rather,
the objections reiterate and attempt to bolster the Petitioner’s original filing, which were
considered by the magistrate judge when he issued the R&R. The Petitioner has failed
to argue that his Petition is not a second or successive motion under § 2255 or that it
could properly be considered by this Court. Instead, the Petitioner reiterates previously
stated arguments and case law to support his position.
Therefore, the Court finds that de novo review is not required because the
Petitioner has failed to make specific objections to the magistrate judge’s analysis as
found within his R&R.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, finding that Magistrate Judge Trumble’s R&R carefully considers the
record and applies the appropriate legal analysis, it is the opinion of this Court that
Magistrate Judge Trumble=s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 11] should be, and
is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated therein.
Thus, Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is
DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

4

The Petitioner has not met the requirements for issuance of a certificate of
appealability. A court may issue a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has
made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §.2253(c)(2).
If a district court denies a petitioner’s claims on the merits, then “[t]he petitioner must
demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
“If, on the other hand, the denial was procedural, the petitioner must show ‘that jurists of
reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a
constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district
court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 397
(4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Slack, 529 U.S. at 484). Here, upon a thorough review of the
record, the Court concludes that the Petitioner has not made the requisite showing.
The Clerk is further DIRECTED to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of
record and the pro se Petitioner.
DATED: August 30, 2018 

5