Turner v. Heckard

Filing 11

ORDER adopting the 10 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge Tinsley; granting Respondent's 9 MOTION to Dismiss Petition; denying as moot Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241; and dismissing the matter. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 11/13/2023. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (jsa)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY MILIK TURNER, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-cv-00175 KATINA HECKARD, Respondent. ORDER Pending are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [ECF 1], filed on April 11, 2022, and Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petition [ECF 9], filed on August 2, 2023. 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 his PF&R on October 13, 2023. Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended that the Court find Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition is now moot due to his release from BOP custody, grant Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petition, deny as moot Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and dismiss this matter from the Court’s docket. 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- 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 October 30, 2023. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 10], GRANTS Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petition [ECF 9], DENIES as moot Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [ECF 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: November 13, 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?