Hill v. Young
Filing
12
ORDER adopting the 10 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge, dismissing the 2 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and dismissing the matter. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 8/27/2020. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (slr)
Case 5:17-cv-03391 Document 12 Filed 08/27/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 32
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BECKLEY
JEROME J. HILL, JR.,
Petitioner,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-cv-03391
D.L. YOUNG, Warden,
Respondent.
ORDER
Pending is Petitioner Jerome J. Hill, Jr.’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc.
2], filed on June 23, 2017. This action was previously referred to the Honorable Omar J.
Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a
recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R on April 1, 2020 [Doc.
10]. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court dismiss the Petition as moot and
remove the matter from the docket.
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(b)(1) (emphasis added) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.”). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the
Petitioner’s right to appeal the Court’s order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v.
De Leon-Ramirez, 925 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 2019) (parties may not typically “appeal a
Case 5:17-cv-03391 Document 12 Filed 08/27/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 33
magistrate judge’s findings that were not objected to below, as § 636(b) doesn’t require de novo
review absent objection.”); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989). Further, the
Court need not conduct 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 in this case
were due on April 20, 2020. No objections were filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 10], DISMISSES the Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 2], 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 herein.
ENTERED: August 27, 2020
2
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?