Anderson v. Coakley

Filing 7

ORDER The Court ADOPTS the 6 Proposed Findings and Recommendation in full and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Petitioner's pro se 2 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; this matter is DISMISSED and the Clerk is DIRECTED to remove this action from the docket of the Court. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 8/29/2019. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (kew)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
JUSTIN B. ANDERSON,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-cv-00194

JOE COAKLEY,
Warden,
Respondent.

ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner’s pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. (ECF No. 2.) By standing order entered on March 20, 2019, (ECF No. 3), this action
was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of proposed
findings and a recommendation for disposition (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Eifert filed her
PF&R on August 5, 2019, recommending that this Court dismiss, without prejudice, Petitioner’s
petition for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (ECF No. 6.)
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 PF&R 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 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, 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 August 22, 2019. (ECF No. 6.) 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. 6), in full and DISMISSES
WITHOUT PREJUDICE Petitioner’s pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (ECF No. 2).
The Court further dismisses this matter and 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:

August 29, 2019