Ross v. United States of America, No. 2:2016cv05542 - Document 96 (S.D.W. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 95 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge and directing that the Petitioner's 83 and 85 Motions be denied and this matter be dismissed from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 6/18/2019. (cc: Magistrate Judge, attys; any unrepresented party) (lca)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ross v. United States of America Doc. 96 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION CHANDRA K. ROSS, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-05542 (Criminal No. 2:13-cr-00214) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On June 20, 2016, the Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct sentence (Document 83). On August 29, 2016, the Petitioner filed another motion (amendment) under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct sentence (Document 85). By Standing Order (Document 84) entered on June 21, 2016, this action was referred to the Honorable Dwane L. Tinsley, 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 May 28, 2019, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 95) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny the Petitioner’s § 2555 motions, and dismiss this matter from the docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by June 14, 2019, and none were filed by either party. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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 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 § 2255 motions (Documents 83 & 85) be DENIED, and that this matter be DISMISSED from the Court’s docket. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge Tinsley, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 June 18, 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.
