Smith
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the 6 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS that Petitioner's 1 Application Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State or Federal Custody be DENIED. Further, the Court ORDERS that this matter be removed from the docket of this Court. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 5/21/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (msa)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BECKLEY DIVISION
LYNN GARY SMITH
Petitioner,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-cv-00660
D. DERKEBILE,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 For Writ of
Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody (Document 1). By Order (Document 2)
entered on June 12, 2009, this action was referred to the Honorable R. Clarke VanDervort,
United States Magistrate Judge, for submission to this Court of proposed findings of fact and
recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On May 1, 2012, the
Magistrate Judge submitted Proposed Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) (Document 6),
wherein it is recommended that this Court deny Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
and remove this 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 to the
PF&R in this case were due on May 18, 2012. To date, no party has filed objections.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the Proposed Findings and
Recommendation, and ORDERS that Petitioner’s Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 For Writ
of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody (Document 1) be DENIED. Further,
the Court ORDERS that this matter be removed from the docket of this Court.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to
any unrepresented party.
ENTER:
2
May 21, 2012
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?