Crawford v. Felts

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the recommendation contained in the 14 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, DISMISSES AS MOOT Petitioner's 1 Application to Correct Sentence, and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove the matter from the Court's docket. A separate Judgment Order will enter this day implementing the rulings contained herein. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 7/8/2009. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (mls) Modified on 7/9/2009 to correct Judge association (cds).

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION CURTIS E. CRAWFORD, Petitioner, v. CHARLES T. FELTS, Respondent. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:06-cv-00254 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court is Petitioner's Application to Correct Sentence [Docket 1]. By Standing Order entered on July 21, 2004, and filed in this case on April 5, 2006, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (PF&R). On April 19, 2006, the case was reassigned to the undersigned District Judge. Magistrate Judge VanDervort filed his PF&R [Docket 14] on June 16, 2009, recommending that this Court DISMISS the application as moot and remove matter from the Court's docket. 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 in the instant case were due on July 6, 2009. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly the Court ADOPTS the recommendation contained in the PF&R [Docket 14], DISMISSES AS MOOT Petitioner's Application to Correct Sentence [Docket 1], and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove the matter from the Court's docket. A separate Judgment Order will enter this day implementing the rulings contained herein. 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: July 8, 2009 _________________________________________ THOMAS E. JOHNSTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -2-

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?