Dunkins v. Berkebile, No. 5:2009cv00940 - Document 14 (S.D.W. Va. 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court ADOPTS the 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge and ORDERS taht Petitioner's 1 Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241(3) be DISMISSED; the Court ORDERS that this matter be removed from the docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 6/21/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION OSCAR DUNKINS, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-cv-00940 WARDEN D. BERKEBILE, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION The Court has reviewed Petitioner s Petition For The Issuance Of A Writ Of Habeas Corpus, Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 2241(3) (Document 1). By Order (Document 2) entered on August 17, 2009, this action was referred to the Honorable R. Clarke VanDervort, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission to this Court of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On June 1, 2012, the Magistrate Judge submitted Proposed Findings and Recommendation ( PF&R ) (Document 13), wherein it is recommended that this Court dismiss Petitioner s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and remove this 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. § 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 to the PF&R in this case were due no later than June 18, 2012. To date, no party has filed any objections. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS that Petitioner s Petition For The Issuance Of A Writ Of Habeas Corpus, Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 2241(3) (Document 1) be DISMISSED. Further, the Court ORDERS that this matter be removed from the docket. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 June 21, 2012

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.