Edmon v. Heckerd

Filing 10

ORDER adopting the 9 Proposed Findings and Recommendations, granting Respondent's 7 Request for dismissal, denying the 1 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and dismissing the matter. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 5/22/2023. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (btm)

Download PDF
Case 5:22-cv-00099 Document 10 Filed 05/22/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 45 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY EDMON ISHO, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-cv-00099 KATRINA HECKERD, Respondent. ORDER Pending are Petitioner Edmon Isho’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1], filed February 25, 2022, and Respondent Katrina Heckerd’s request for dismissal [Doc. 7], filed April 28, 2022. 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 August 5, 2022. Magistrate Judge Eifert recommended that the Court deny Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241; grant Respondent’s request for dismissal; and dismiss this action and remove it from the docket of the Court. 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 Leon- Case 5:22-cv-00099 Document 10 Filed 05/22/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 46 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 August 22, 2022. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 9], GRANTS Respondent’s request for dismissal [Doc. 7], DENIES the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [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. ENTER: May 22, 2023 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?