Dunkins v. Berkebile
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court ADOPTS the 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge and ORDERS taht Petitioner's 1 Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241(3) be DISMISSED; the Court ORDERS that this matter be removed from the docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 6/21/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BECKLEY DIVISION
OSCAR DUNKINS,
Petitioner,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-cv-00940
WARDEN D. BERKEBILE,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s Petition For The Issuance Of A Writ Of Habeas
Corpus, Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 2241(3) (Document 1). By Order (Document 2) entered on
August 17, 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 June 1, 2012, the Magistrate Judge
submitted Proposed Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) (Document 13), wherein it is
recommended that this Court dismiss 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 no later than June 18, 2012. To date, no party has filed any
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 Petition For The Issuance Of A Writ Of
Habeas Corpus, Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 2241(3) (Document 1) be DISMISSED. Further, the
Court ORDERS that this matter be removed from the docket.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.
ENTER:
2
June 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?