Pringle v. Sevier

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Court ADOPTS the 10 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and DENIES Petitioner's 1 Motion to Remove from State Court to Federal of Charleston, West Virginia, th e 3 Motion of Rebuttal Evidence, the 4 Motion to Transfer from State Court to Federal Court, the 5 Petition under All Writs Act, the 6 and 9 Motions to Transport and Hearing by Jury Trial and Motion for Appointment of Counsel, the 11 Moti on for Judgment on Writ of Habeas Corpus Pleadings, the 12 Motion for Judgment on Pleadings, and the 13 Motion for Judgment on Pleadings of Writ of State Habeas Corpus; while the PF&R also recommends that the Court consider imposing a prefiling i njunction in this case, the Court does so in a memorandum opinion and order entered on this same date in one of Petitioner's related cases. (See Pringle v. Zatecky, Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-01023, ECF No. 11 at 3.); the Clerk is directed to remove this action from the docket of the Court. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 10/4/2018. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (kp)

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

ROGER PRINGLE,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-cv-00955

MARK SEVIER,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are Petitioner’s “Motion to Remove from State Court to Federal of
Charleston, West Virginia,” (ECF No. 1), “Motion of Rebuttal Evidence,” (ECF No. 3), “Motion
to Transfer from State Court to Federal Court,” (ECF No. 4), “Petition under All Writs Act,” (ECF
No. 5), and two “Motions to Transport and Hearing by Jury Trial and Motion for Appointment of
Counsel,” (ECF Nos. 6, 9). By Standing Order filed in this case on May 22, 2018, 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. 2.) Magistrate Judge Tinsley
entered his PF&R on July 2, 2018, recommending that the Court find that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441, Petitioner may not remove or transfer his state habeas corpus proceeding from the Circuit
Court of Madison County, Indiana, to this Court. (ECF No. 10 at 4.) Based on that proposed
finding, the PF&R further recommends that the Court deny the aforementioned motions, (ECF
Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9), and dismiss this matter from the Court’s docket. (ECF No. 10 at 4.) Finally,
the PF&R recommends that the Court consider imposing a prefiling injunction prohibiting

Petitioner from filing additional petitions or motions in this Court related to his criminal and habeas
corpus proceedings in Indiana. (Id.)
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 a party’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).

To date, no objections have been filed. However, Petitioner made three additional filings
styled as motions following the entry of the PF&R. He filed a “Motion for Judgment on Writ of
Habeas Corpus Pleadings,” (ECF No. 11), a “Motion for Judgment on Pleadings,” (ECF No. 12),
and a “Motion for Judgment on Pleadings of Writ of State Habeas Corpus,” (ECF No. 13). These
one-page documents discuss Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus proceeding allegedly filed in the
Circuit Court of Madison County, Indiana, on March 5, 2018, and ask “for an [sic] ruling on the
habeas corpus with the evidence mailed” to the Court. (See ECF No. 11 at 1; ECF No. 12 at 1.)
Apparently, Petitioner believes that because the Indiana state court has not ruled on his habeas
petition for “over three months,” he can rely on 28 U.S.C. § 1441 to remove the case to this Court.
(See ECF No. 13 at 1.) As explained in the PF&R, however, Petitioner has no authority to remove
his case to this Court under that federal statute. (See ECF No. 10 at 4.) Thus, even if the three
motions could be construed as objections to the PF&R, they are OVERRULED as too general
2

and do not warrant a de novo review of any conclusion within the PF&R. See Orpiano, 687 F.2d
at 47.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 10), and DENIES Petitioner’s
“Motion to Remove from State Court to Federal of Charleston, West Virginia,” (ECF No. 1),
“Motion of Rebuttal Evidence,” (ECF No. 3), “Motion to Transfer from State Court to Federal
Court,” (ECF No. 4), “Petition under All Writs Act,” (ECF No. 5), two “Motions to Transport and
Hearing by Jury Trial and Motion for Appointment of Counsel,” (ECF Nos. 6, 9), “Motion for
Judgment on Writ of Habeas Corpus Pleadings,” (ECF No. 11), “Motion for Judgment on
Pleadings,” (ECF No. 12), and “Motion for Judgment on Pleadings of Writ of State Habeas
Corpus,” (ECF No. 13). While the PF&R also recommends that the Court consider imposing a
prefiling injunction in this case, the Court does so in a memorandum opinion and order entered on
this same date in one of Petitioner’s related cases. (See Pringle v. Zatecky, Civil Action No. 2:18cv-01023, ECF No. 11 at 3.) The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this action 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:

3

October 4, 2018