Blaney v. Ballard

Filing 28

ORDER denying as moot 24 Motion to Extend Time to File Objection to Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed by Jerome M. Blaney; adopting and incorporating 23 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 3/27/2014; 8 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by David Ballard; directing that the petition for writ of habeas corpus [Docket 2] be dismissed and stricken from the docket of this court. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
PARKERSBURG DIVISION

JEROME M. BLANEY,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:13-cv-08538

DAVID BALLARD,
Respondent.

ORDER
This petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was filed on April 22, 2013.
The petition was referred to the Honorable Cheryl A. Eifert, United States Magistrate Judge, for
submission to this court of proposed findings of fact and a recommendation for disposition,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The respondent then filed a motion for summary judgment
[Docket 8]. The Magistrate Judge has submitted findings of fact and has recommended that the
court deny the habeas petition [Docket 23]. Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed
Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) were due on or before February 24, 2014.
Approximately five days before this deadline, the petitioner filed a motion requesting an
extension of time to object to the Magistrate Judge’s PF&R [Docket 24]. Before this court ruled on
the motion, the petitioner filed his objections over three weeks late. Although his objections are
untimely, I will consider the objections. Therefore, the petitioner’s motion for an extension of time
[Docket 24] is DENIED as moot.

In his objections, the petitioner reiterates arguments that the Magistrate Judge rejected in
her thorough and well-reasoned PF&R. Because the Magistrate Judge has already considered these
arguments and I agree with the rationale set forth in her PF&R, I need not readdress them here.
Moreover, after a thorough de novo review of the PF&R and the record in this case, I FIND that
the petitioner’s objections lack merit. Accordingly, the court ADOPTS and incorporates herein
the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation, GRANTS, the respondent’s
Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 8], and ORDERS that the petition for writ of habeas
corpus [Docket 2] be dismissed and stricken from the docket of this court.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.

ENTER:

2

March 27, 2014