Loatman v. Young

Filing 10

ORDER adopting the 9 Proposed Findings and Recommendations, denying the 2 Petition, and dismissing the matter. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 1/19/2021. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (slr)

Case 5:20-cv-00490 Document 10 Filed 01/19/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 41

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BECKLEY
CLAUDE ALLEN LOATMAN, III,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-cv-00490

D.L. YOUNG, Warden,
FCI Beckley,
Respondent.
ORDER
Pending is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 2], filed July 20,
2020. 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 December 21, 2020. Magistrate Judge Eifert
recommended that the Court dismiss the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)
and L. R. Civ. P. 41.1, as the petitioner did not pay the filing fee and made no effort to communicate
with the Court regarding his failure to do so.
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.

Case 5:20-cv-00490 Document 10 Filed 01/19/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 42

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). Objections in this case
were due on January 7, 2020. No objections were filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 9], DENIES the Petition [Doc.
2], 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 herein.
ENTER: January 19, 2021

2