Hatfield v. United States of America, No. 5:2009cv00568 - Document 249 (S.D.W. Va. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: adopting the 248 Proposed Findings and Recommendations; granting Petitioner's 247 Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss; dismissing Petitioner's 219 Petitioner; directing the Clerk to remove the matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 7/8/2009. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION DAVID LYNN HATFIELD, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-cv-00568 (Criminal No. 5:02-cr-00219) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court is Petitioner s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal [Docket 247]. By Standing Order entered on August 1, 2006, and filed in this case on May 20, 2009, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (PF&R). Magistrate Judge VanDervort filed his PF&R [Docket 248] on June 8, 2009, recommending that this Court GRANT the motion and DISMISS the Petition, and remove matter from the Court s docket. 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. ยง 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 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 in the instant case were due on June 25, 2009. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly the Court ADOPTS the recommendation contained in the PF&R [Docket 248], GRANTS Petitioner s Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss [Docket 247], DISMISSES the Petition [Docket 1], and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove the matter from the Court s docket. A separate Judgment Order will enter this day implementing the rulings contained herein. 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: July 8, 2009 _________________________________________ THOMAS E. JOHNSTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
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.
