From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Perkins v. Young

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY
Feb 12, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-cv-00152 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 12, 2020)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-cv-00152

02-12-2020

BYRON KEITH PERKINS, Petitioner, v. WARDEN D.L. YOUNG, Respondent.


ORDER

Pending is Petitioner's letter-form motion for voluntary dismissal [Doc. 18] filed January 13, 2020. This action was previously referred to United States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation ("PF&R"). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R on January 22, 2020. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court grant Petitioner's letter-form motion [Doc. 18], dismiss the Petition [Doc. 1] without prejudice, and remove 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) (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. 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 February 10, 2020. No objections were filed.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 19], GRANTS Petitioner's motion for voluntary dismissal [Doc. 18], DISMISSES the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1] without prejudice, 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.

ENTERED: February 12, 2020

/s/_________

Frank W. Volk

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Perkins v. Young

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY
Feb 12, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-cv-00152 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 12, 2020)
Case details for

Perkins v. Young

Case Details

Full title:BYRON KEITH PERKINS, Petitioner, v. WARDEN D.L. YOUNG, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

Date published: Feb 12, 2020

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-cv-00152 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 12, 2020)