Joyce v. Butler, No. 2:2014cv07530 - Document 11 (S.D.W. Va. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 10 Proposed Findings and Recommendation; denying the petitioner's 1 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (§ 2241); and granting respondent's 7 Motion to Dismiss; directing this case removed from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 11/18/2014. (cc: petitioner; attys; any unrepresented party) (taq)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Joyce v. Butler Doc. 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION DEBORAH L. JOYCE, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-07530 SANDRA BUTLER, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court are Petitioner Deborah Joyce’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“§ 2241 petition”) [ECF 1] and Respondent’s motion to dismiss [ECF 7]. By Standing Order entered April 8, 2013, and filed in this case on February 6, 2014, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition (PF&R). On June 10, 2014, Magistrate Judge Eifert issued a PF&R [ECF 10] recommending that the Court deny § 2241 petition and grant the motion to dismiss. 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 not Dockets.Justia.com 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 June 10, 2014, PF&R in this case were due by June 27, 2014. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 10], DENIES Petitioner’s § 2241 petition [ECF 1], GRANTS Respondent’s motion to dismiss [ECF 7], 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 November 18, 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.
