Hill v. United States of America, No. 1:2018cv00339 - Document 67 (S.D.W. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: the Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the 66 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS that the Petitioner's 52 Motion for Relief Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 be DENIED and that this matter be REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 8/13/2019. (cc: Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn, counsel of record, any unrepresented party) (mk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hill v. United States of America Doc. 67 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BLUEFIELD DIVISION TEVAS HILL, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-cv-00339 (Criminal No. 1:09-cr-00117) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On February 21, 2018, the Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed his Motion for Relief Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Document 52). By Standing Order (Document 53) entered on February 23, 2018, the matter was referred to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, 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. On July 11, 2019, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 66) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny the Petitioner’s § 2555 motion and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by July 29, 2019. Neither party has timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation. 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 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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). 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 the Petitioner’s Motion for Relief Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Document 52) be DENIED and that this matter be REMOVED from the Court’s docket. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 August 13, 2019
]]>
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.
