Griffin v. Young

Filing 19

ORDER adopting the 18 Proposed Findings and Recommendation; granting Respondent's 12 Motion to Dismiss and dismissing the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and dismissing the matter. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 9/8/2021. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (msa)

Case 5:19-cv-00733 Document 19 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 143

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BECKLEY
SAINT GRIFFIN,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-cv-00733

DAVID L. YOUNG, Warden,
FCI Beckley,
Respondent.
ORDER
Pending is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 12], filed September 28, 2020.
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 August 12, 2021. Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended that the Court
grant Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 12] and dismiss Petitioner’s § 2241 petition and this
civil action for lack of jurisdiction.
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 5:19-cv-00733 Document 19 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 144

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 August 30, 2021.
No objections were filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 18], GRANTS Respondent’s
Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 12], and 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.
September 8, 2021
ENTERED: _____________________

2