Cross v. Young, No. 5:2021cv00416 - Document 15 (S.D.W. Va. 2024)

Court Description: ORDER adopting the 14 Proposed Findings and Recommendations, dismissing the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) and dismissing the matter. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 4/15/2024. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (btm)

Download PDF
Dockets.Justia.com TYRONE CROSS, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:21-cv-00416 D.L. YOUNG, Respondent. Pending is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1], filed July 23, 2021. This action was previously referred to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R on March 13, 2024. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court dismiss Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1] and remove this matter from the 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 Cross v. Young Doc. 15 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) (Parties may not typically “appeal a magistrate 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 April 1, 2024. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court the PF&R [ for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [ ], ], and the Petition the matter. The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 April 15, 2024

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.