Whitley v. Terry

Filing 14

ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendation and DISMISSES this action WITH PREJUDICE from the docket of this Court. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 5/6/2020. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (msa)

Case 2:17-cv-04583 Document 14 Filed 05/06/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 101

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
RAYMOND WHITLEY,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-04583

RUSSEL MASTON,
Respondent.

ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner Raymond J. Whitley’s claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §§
1983 and 1988, filed on a form intended for petitions for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §
2254. (ECF No. 1.) By Standing Order entered on January 4, 2016, and filed in this case on
December 21, 2017, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley
for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition (“PF&R”). (ECF No.
3.) This matter was subsequently transferred to Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on December
19, 2019. (ECF No. 11.) On February 13, 2020, Magistrate Judge Eifert entered her PF&R,
recommending that the Court deny Petitioner’s request for relief and dismiss this action from the
docket of the Court. (ECF No. 13.)
This 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.

Case 2:17-cv-04583 Document 14 Filed 05/06/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 102
1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). In addition, the 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 on March 2, 2020. (ECF No. 13.) To date,
Petitioner has failed to submit any objections in response to the PF&R, thus constituting a waiver
of de novo review and Petitioner’s right to appeal this Court’s order.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 13), and DISMISSES this action
WITH PREJUDICE from the docket of the Court.
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:

May 6, 2020