Fannon v. Young et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court ADOPTS the 9 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, DISMISSES the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and DISMISSES this matter. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 6/23/2020. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (msa)

Case 5:17-cv-04036 Document 11 Filed 06/23/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 38

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BECKLEY
CHRISTIAN P. FANNON,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN D.L. YOUNG, et al

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-cv-04036

Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1], filed
September 25, 2017. This action was previously referred to United States Magistrate Judge Omar
J. Aboulhosn for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate
Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R on April 1, 2020. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended
that the Court dismiss the petition and remove the matter from the Court’s 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) (noting parties may not typically “appeal a
magistrate judge’s findings that were not objected to below, as § 636(b) doesn’t require de novo

Case 5:17-cv-04036 Document 11 Filed 06/23/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 39

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. 9], DISMISSES the Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1], 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.
ENTERED: June 23, 2020

2