Plummer v. Administrator
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 15 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, denying Petitioner's 5 APPLICATION to proceed without prepayment of Fees and Costs, dismissing without prejudice Petitioner's 1 LETTER-FORM COMPLAINT, 4 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS and 6 , 7 , 8 , 12 , 13 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION, and directing the Clerk to remove this action from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 10/20/2015. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (tmh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
STEPHENNIE LYNN PLUMMER,
Petitioner,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-00315
ADMINISTRATOR,
South Central Regional Jail,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s (1) letter-form complaint, which the Clerk
interpreted as a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the “Complaint”), (ECF
No. 1); (2) Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State
Custody (the “Petition”), (ECF No. 4); (3) additional documentation in support of the Petition (the
“Additional Documentation”), (ECF Nos. 6‒8, 12‒13); (4) letter-form motion, which the Clerk
construed as a motion to amend the Petition (the “Motion to Amend”), (ECF No. 14); and (5)
Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (the “Application”), (ECF No. 5).
By Standing Order entered on May 7, 2014 and filed in this case on January 13, 2015, this action
was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of proposed
findings and recommendations for disposition (“PF&R”). (ECF No. 3.) Magistrate Judge Eifert
filed her PF&R on September 29, 2015, in which she recommends that the Court deny the
Application and the Motion to Amend and dismiss without prejudice the Complaint, the Petition,
and the Additional Documentation. (ECF No. 15.)
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). 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 October 16, 2015. (See ECF No. 15 at
13‒14.) To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 15), DENIES the Application,
(ECF No. 5), and the Motion to Amend, (ECF No. 14), DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE
the Complaint, (ECF No. 1), the Petition, (ECF No. 4), and the Additional Documentation, (ECF
Nos. 6, 7, 8, 12, 13), and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this action 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:
October 20, 2015
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?