Barfield v. Young, No. 5:2018cv00323 - Document 14 (S.D.W. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: ADOPTING the 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, DENYING the Petitioner's 1 Application Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State or Federal Custody, and ORDERING the matter stricken. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 12/12/2019. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (btm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Barfield v. Young Doc. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY CHRISTOPHER BARFIELD, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-cv-00323 D.L. YOUNG, Warden, FCI Beckley, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending is the Petitioner’s Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State or Federal Custody [Doc. 1], filed on February 16, 2018. This action was previously referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on November 15, 2019. Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended that the Court deny the petition and remove the matter from the Court’s docket. 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 or recommendation to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see also 28 U.S.C. § 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 file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Petitioner’s right to appeal the Court’s order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. De LeonRamirez, 925 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 2019) (noting parties may not typically “appeal a magistrate Dockets.Justia.com judge’s findings that were not objected to below, as § 636(b) doesn’t require de novo review absent objection.”); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989). Further, the Court need not conduct 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 this case were due on December 2, 2019. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 13], DENIES the Petitioner’s Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State or Federal Custody [Doc. 1], and ORDERS the matter stricken. The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTERED: December 12, 2019 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.
