Cantrell v. United States of America

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: the Court DISMISSES Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Directs the Clerk to remove the matter from the docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 5/22/2009. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (cds)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION JEFFREY S. CANTRELL, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court is Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Docket 1]. By Standing Order entered on August 1, 2006, and filed in this case on October 8, 2008, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (PF&R). On April 17, 2009, Magistrate Judge VanDervort filed his PF&R, recommending that the Court construe Petitioner's habeas petition as brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, find that the petition was not timely filed, dismiss the petition, and remove the 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); 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 CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:08-cv-01164

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 were due in this case by May 4, 2009. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Docket 1] and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove the matter from the 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: May 22, 2009

_________________________________________ THOMAS E. JOHNSTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2