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)

Download PDF
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

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?