Foster v. Collins, No. 2:2016cv07333 - Document 48 (S.D.W. Va. 2024)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The 47 Proposed Findings and Recommendation is ADOPTED; the 23 MOTION by John T. Murphy for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; the 5 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED; and this civil action is DISMISSED from the docket of this court. Signed by Senior Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 4/3/2024. (cc: petitioner; counsel of record; United States Magistrate Judge) (kew)

Download PDF
Foster v. Collins Doc. 48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON ERIC A. FOSTER, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-07333 JASON COLLINS, Superintendent, Denmar Correctional Center and Jail, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the court is the Proposed Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) of the United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley, entered on March 13, 2024. ECF 47. The Magistrate Judge recommends granting respondent Jason Collins’ motion for summary judgment (ECF 23), denying petitioner Eric A. Foster’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF 5), and dismissing this action from the court’s docket. ECF 47 at 44. 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 and recommendations to which no objection has been addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1 Dockets.Justia.com 636(b)(1) (“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.”) (emphasis added). Failure to timely file objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the plaintiff’s right to appeal the order of the court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989). Objections in this case having been due on April 1, 2024, and none having been filed, this matter may be duly adjudicated. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The findings made in the magistrate judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendations be, and hereby are, ADOPTED by the court and incorporated herein; 2. The respondent’s motion for summary judgment be, and it hereby is, GRANTED; 3. The petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus be, and it hereby is, DENIED; 4. This civil action be, and it hereby is, DISMISSED from the docket of this court. 2 The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this memorandum opinion and order to the petitioner, all counsel of record, and the United States Magistrate Judge. ENTER: April 3, 2024 3

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.