Justis v. Pszczolkowski, No. 2:2015cv06420 - Document 4 (S.D.W. Va. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER incorporating the 3 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge, denying the petitioner's 1 MOTION for Stay of Abeyance, dismissing the case, and directing that this action be removed from the docket. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 10/2/2015. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (tmh)

Download PDF
Justis v. Pszczolkowski Doc. 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION RAY JUSTIS, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-06420 KAREN PSZCZOLKOWSKI, Warden, Northern Correctional Facility, Respondent. ORDER This action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On September 11, 2015, Judge Eifert submitted her Proposed Findings & Recommendations [ECF No. 3] (“PF&R”) and recommended that the court DENY the petitioner’s Motion for Stay of Abeyance [ECF No. 1] and DISMISS the case. The parties were directed to file any objections to the PF&R on or before September 28, 2015. Neither party filed objections to the PF&R—nor sought an extension of time—on or before September 28, 2015. A district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C). This court is not, however, required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge Dockets.Justia.com as to those portions of the findings or recommendation to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Because the parties have not filed objections in this case, the court accepts and incorporates herein the PF&R and orders judgment consistent therewith. The court DENIES the petitioner’s Motion for Stay of Abeyance [ECF No. 1], DISMISSES the case, and DIRECTS this action to be removed from the docket. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 October 2, 2015

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.