Moore v. United States of America

Filing 85

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Adopting the 83 Proposed Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; denying Petitioner's 72 Motion Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody; removing this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 7/2/2018. (cc: Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn; counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (btm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BECKLEY DIVISION

RYAN D. MOORE,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-cv-07697
(Criminal No. 5:12-cr-00232)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On June 15, 2015, the Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Document 72). By
Standing Order (Document 73) entered on June 16, 2015, 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. Subsequently,
by Order (Document 81) entered on January 6, 2016, the case was referred to the Honorable Omar
J. Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings of fact and
recommendation for disposition.
On May 24, 2018, the Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn submitted a Proposed Findings and
Recommendation (Document 83) wherein it is recommended that the Petitioner’s Motion Under
28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody

1

(Document 72) be denied, and that this matter be removed from the Court’s docket. Objections to
the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by June 11, 20181.
Neither party has timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and
Recommendation. 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).
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 the Petitioner’s Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate,
Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Document 72) be DENIED and
that this matter be REMOVED from the Court’s docket.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge
Aboulhosn, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

July 2, 2018

The docket reflects that the Proposed Findings and Recommendation mailed to the Petitioner was
returned as undeliverable on 6/12/18, and re-mailed to a different address on that date. As of July
1, 2018, no objections had been filed.
2
1