Taylor v. Young

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 14 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, GRANTS the Respondent's 9 request for dismissal, DISMISSES the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241, and DISMISSES this matter. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 5/14/2020. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (msa)

Case 5:18-cv-01071 Document 16 Filed 05/14/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 147

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BECKLEY
TONY TAYLOR,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-cv-01071

D.L. YOUNG,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending is the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc.
1], filed June 22, 2018. This action was previously referred to the Honorable Cheryl A. Eifert,
United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation
(“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Eifert filed her PF&R on February 7, 2020. Magistrate Judge Eifert
recommended that the Court grant the Respondent’s request for dismissal, dismiss the Petition for
a Writ of Habeas Corpus, and remove the matter from the Court’s docket. Mr. Taylor timely filed
his objection – styled as a “Motion in Opposition to the Proposed findings and Recommendations”
– on February 21, 2020 [Doc. 15].
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

Case 5:18-cv-01071 Document 16 Filed 05/14/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 148

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
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).
Mr. Taylor generally objects to the Magistrate Judge’s determination that he is not
entitled to relief, and requests that “the motion of proposed findings and recommendations by the
Magistrate Judge be dismissed.” [Doc. 15]. Mr. Taylor submitted a bevy of exhibits in support of
his objections. Mr. Taylor does not, however, at any point identify a specific portion of the PF&R
to which he objects. Instead, Mr. Taylor simply relitigates his previous arguments. Inasmuch as
Mr. Taylor has not raised any objections to any specific portion of the PF&R, he is not entitled to
de novo review. See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 140; Orpiano, 687 F.2d at 47.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 14], GRANTS the
Respondent’s request for dismissal [Doc. 9], DISMISSES the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1], and DISMISSES the matter.
The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and
Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party herein.
ENTERED: May 14, 2020

2