Benjamin Eugene Green, Jr. v. United States of America

Filing 102

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting 90 Proposed Findings and Recommendations as to Benjamin Eugene Green Jr.; denying 73 MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255) by Benjamin Eugene Green Jr.; denying 85 MOTION to be Heard by Benjamin Eugene Green Jr.; dismissing this case with prejudice and directing the Clerk remove this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 4/11/2016. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (mek)

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

BENJAMIN EUGENE GREEN, JR.,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-17494
(Criminal No. 2:99-cr-00057)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set
Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (the “Petition”), (ECF No. 73), and
Petitioner’s letter-form “motion to be heard” (the “Motion”), (ECF No. 85). By Standing Order
filed in this case on July 9, 2014, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl
A. Eifert for total pretrial management and submission of proposed findings of fact and
recommendations for disposition. (ECF No. 75.) On December 23, 2015, Magistrate Judge Eifert
filed proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition (the “PF&R”), in which she
recommends that the Court deny the Petition and the Motion, dismiss this case with prejudice, and
remove this matter from the Court’s docket. (ECF No. 90 at 13‒14.)
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 Petitioner’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).
Objections to the PF&R were due by January 11, 2016. (See ECF No. 90 at 14.) To date,
no party has filed an objection to the PF&R.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 90), DENIES the Petition, (ECF
No. 73), and the Motion, (ECF No. 85), DISMISSES this case WITH PREJUDICE, and
DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this matter 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:

April 11, 2016