Griffin v. United States of America

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: adopting the 9 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; DISMISSING the Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec tion 2241 and Petitioner's 6 Amended Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section; directing the Clerk to remove this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 9/13/2011. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION DERRICK GRIFFIN, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:10-cv-00740 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 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 August 23, 2011, the Magistrate Judge submitted Proposed Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) (Docket 9) wherein it is recommended that this Court dismiss Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Docket 1) and Amended Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Docket 6) 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 were due to be filed on or before September 9, 2011. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Docket 9) be ADOPTED. The Court further ORDERS that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Docket 1) and Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Docket 6) be DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to REMOVE this matter from the Court’s docket. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 September 13, 2011

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?