Middlebrooks v. Young

Filing 14

ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, DISMISSES Mr. Middlebrooks' 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 7/14/2020. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (msa)

Case 5:17-cv-04143 Document 14 Filed 07/14/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 87

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BECKLEY
TAVARES K. MIDDLEBROOKS,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-cv-04143

D.L. YOUNG, Warden,
FCI Beckley,
Respondent.
ORDER
Pending is Petitioner Tavares Middlebrooks’ Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1], filed October 10, 2017.
This action was previously referred to the Honorable Dwane L. Tinsley, United
States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”).
Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on May 29, 2020. Magistrate Judge Tinsley
recommended that the Court dismiss Mr. Middlebrooks’ petition.
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) (“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.”) (emphasis
added). 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 LeonRamirez, 925 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 2019) (parties may not typically “appeal a magistrate judge’s

Case 5:17-cv-04143 Document 14 Filed 07/14/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 88

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 June 15, 2020.
No objections were filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 13], DISMISSES Mr.
Middlebrooks’ Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1], and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove
the matter from the Court’s docket.
The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record
and any unrepresented party.
ENTERED: July 14, 2020

2