Galloway v. Ballard

Filing 41

ORDER adopting the 39 Proposed Findings and Recommendation; granting the Respondent's 31 Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment; denying the Petitioner's 27 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254 and dismissing the matter. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 9/28/2023. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (msa)

Case 5:17-cv-00993 Document 41 Filed 09/28/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1867

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BECKLEY
DON GARFIELD GALLOWAY,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-cv-00993

DONNIE AMES, Superintendent,
Mount Olive Correctional Complex,
Respondent.
ORDER
Pending is Respondent

Motion to Dismiss and Motion for

Summary Judgment [Doc. 31], filed May 10, 2023. This action was previously referred to the
Honorable Dwane L. Tinsley, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings
August 30, 2023.
Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended that the Court grant Mr. Ames
Motion for Summary Judgment, deny Petitioner

Amended Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and dismiss this action. Mr. Galloway timely
objected on September 25, 2023. [Doc. 40]
The Court need not 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. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 636

determination of those portions of the

report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made ). Failure

Case 5:17-cv-00993 Document 41 Filed 09/28/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1868

the

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. De Leon-Ramirez, 925 F.3d

177, 181 (4th Cir. 2019) (P
not objected to below, as §

Snyder v.

Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989). Further, the Court need not conduct de novo review

Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d
44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982).
a rote recital of the contentions raised in
his Response

Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary

Judgement [Doc. 34]. The PF&R exhaustively and appropriately considered each ground and
defense warranting discussion. M

recycled objections
and

recommendations. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Moreover, the Court is
entirely satisfied the PF&R has used the right analytical route to reach the correct result.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 39], GRANTS the
Doc. 31], DENIES the
[Doc. 27], and
DISMISSES the matter.
The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record
and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

2

September 28, 2023