Hill v. Heckard, No. 5:2023cv00449 - Document 7 (S.D.W. Va. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER adopting the 6 Proposed Findings and Recommendations, granting Mr. Hill's 5 Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and dismissing the matter. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 9/27/2023. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (btm)

Download PDF
Hill v. Heckard Doc. 7 Case 5:23-cv-00449 Document 7 Filed 09/27/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY MELVIN R. HILL, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-cv-00449 KATINA HECKARD, Respondent. ORDER Pending is Petitioner Melvin R. Hill’s Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 5], filed August 16, 2023. 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 August 21, 2023. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court grant Mr. Hill’s Motion to Dismiss 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 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 Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:23-cv-00449 Document 7 Filed 09/27/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 27 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 September 7, 2023. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 6], GRANTS Mr. Hill’s Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 5] and DISMISSES the matter. The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: September 27, 2023 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.