Graham v. United States of America, No. 1:2006cv00239 - Document 5 (S.D.W. Va. 2009)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING 4 the Proposed Findings and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort; DENYING 1 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255) filed by Michael H. Graham and directing the Clerk to remove this case from the Court's active docket. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 6/8/2009. (cc: Michael H. Graham and counsel of record) (arb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD MICHAEL H. GRAHAM, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06-0239 (CRIMINAL NOS. 1:99-00222-02 AND 1:00-00226-01) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION By Standing Order, these actions were referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of findings and recommendations regarding disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge VanDervort submitted to the court his Findings and Recommendation on March 30, 2009, in which he recommended that the District Court deny plaintiff s motion under § 2255 and remove this matter from the court's docket. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b), the parties were allotted ten days, plus three mailing days, in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge VanDervort s Findings and Recommendation. The failure of any party to file such objections constitutes a waiver of such party's right to a de novo review by this court. Cir. 1989). Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th The parties failed to file any objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation within the thirteen-day period. Having reviewed the Findings and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge VanDervort, the court adopts the findings and recommendations contained therein. Accordingly, the court hereby DENIES plaintiff's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and directs the Clerk to remove this case from the court s active docket. The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion to plaintiff and counsel of record. IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of June, 2009. ENTER: David A. Faber Senior 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.