Griffin v. State of West Virginia et al

Filing 39

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: adopting the 38 Proposed Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge; denying the Petitioner's 18 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; granting the Respondents' 24 Motion to Dismiss; dismissing w ith prejudice Petitioner's 2 and 3 Petition Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus; removing this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 1/16/2018. (cert. cc: attys; any unrepresented party; Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn) (btm)

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

NORMA BROWN GRIFFIN,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-cv-03111

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA ex rel.
HOME CONFINEMENT DEPARTMENT OF
GREENBRIER COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA,
Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On June 1, 2017, the Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Documents 2 & 3). Subsequently, on June 27, 2017, the Petitioner
filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Document 18). On July 13, 2017, the Respondents filed
a Motion to Dismiss (Document 24).
By Standing Order (Document 6) entered on June 2, 2017, this action was referred to the
Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, 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. On
December 21, 2017, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation
(Document 38) wherein it is recommended that the Petitioner’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction
(Document 18) be denied, the Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss (Document 24) be granted, the
Petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Documents 2 & 3) be
1

dismissed without prejudice, and this matter be removed from the Court’s docket. Objections to
the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by January 8, 2018.
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 a party’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 for Preliminary Injunction
(Document 18) be DENIED, the Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss (Document 24) be GRANTED,
the Petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Documents 2 & 3)
be DISMISSED without prejudice, and 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:

2

January 16, 2018