Hillberry v. Ballard, No. 2:2013cv21893 - Document 19 (S.D.W. Va. 2014)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 18 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge, denying Petitioner's 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, granting Respondent's 10 Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing this action with prejudice, and directing the Clerk to remove this case from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 12/15/2014. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party; Petitioner) (tmh)

Download PDF
Hillberry v. Ballard Doc. 19 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-21893 DAVID BALLARD, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Petitioner Roy F. Hillberry’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [ECF 1] and Respondent David Ballard’s motion for summary judgment [ECF 10]. By Standing Order entered April 8, 2013, and filed in this case on August 20, 2013, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition (PF&R). On November 13, 2014, Magistrate Judge Eifert issued a PF&R [ECF 18] recommending that the Court deny Petitioner’s § 2241 motion, grant Respondent’s motion for summary judgment, and dismiss this case with prejudice. The Court is not 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). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Petitioner’s right to appeal this Court’s Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F .2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). In addition, this Court need Dockets.Justia.com not conduct a 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 to the November 13, 2014, PF&R in this case were due on December 1, 2014. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 18], DENIES Petitioner’s § 2241 motion [ECF 1], GRANTS Respondent’s motion for summary judgment [ECF 10], DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE this action, 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 December 15, 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.