Tyheim Little v. United States of America

Filing 748

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER; the Court adopts 747 Proposed Findings and Recommendations as to Tyheim Shawndale Little; dismissing with prejudice 703 MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255), and 734 Memorandum in Support; accordingly dismissing this action and directing the Clerk to remove this case from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 7/23/2015. (cc: Judge, USA, counsel, movant) (sak)

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

TYHEIM SHAWNDALE LITTLE,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-cv-04582
(Criminal No. 2:95-cr-00198)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence
by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, (ECF 703), as amended by
Petitioner’s arguments in his Memorandum of Law in Support, (ECF 734) (together, the “2255
Motion”). By Standing Order entered on September 2, 2010, and filed in this case on August 23,
2012, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Mary E. Stanley for submission of proposed
findings and a recommendation for disposition (“PF&R”). (ECF 706.) On April 8, 2013, the Clerk
transferred the referral of this matter from Magistrate Judge Stanley to Magistrate Judge Dwane L.
Tinsley. (ECF 716.) Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on June 12, 2015, in which he
recommends that this Court dismiss the 2255 Motion, with prejudice, as being untimely filed and
an unauthorized second or successive motion. (ECF 747.)
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). Failure to file timely

objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Plaintiff’s right to appeal this Court’s
Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989);
United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). In addition, this Court need not conduct
a 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 to the PF&R in this case were due by June 29, 2015. (See ECF 747 at 9–10.) To
date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF 747), DISMISSES WITH
PREJUDICE the 2255 Motion, (ECF 703 & 734), DISMISSES this action, 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:

July 23, 2015