Hillberry v. Ballard, No. 2:2013cv20699 - Document 6 (S.D.W. Va. 2014)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 5 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge, dismissing without prejudice petitioner's 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, and directing the Clerk to remove this case from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 9/3/2014. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmh)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION ROY F. HILLBERRY, II, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-20699 DAVID BALLARD, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Roy Hillberry, II, pro se, an inmate at the Mount Olive Correctional Complex ( prison ) in Mount Olive, West Virginia, filed a Petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [ECF 1]. In his Petition, Plaintiff raises several challenges to the constitutionality of the prison s administrative segregation unit. By Standing Order entered on April 8, 2013, and filed in this case on July 25, 2014, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (PF&R) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Eifert filed a PF&R on April 24, 2014 [ECF 5]. In that filing, the magistrate judge recommended that this Court dismiss Petitioner s Petition without prejudice. 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court is not, however, required to 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. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). In addition, this Court need not conduct a de novo review when a petitioner 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 to the PF&R were due March 27, 2014. To date no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 5], DISMISSES the Petition WITHOUT PREJUDICE [ECF 1], and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the Court s docket. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 September 3, 2014

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.