Glenn v. United States of America, No. 2:2017cv02740 - Document 976 (S.D.W. Va. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER as to Keith I. Glenn adopting the 966 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge, denying the 867 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence and dismissing this matter. Cross Reference Criminal Case Number 2:13-00091-05. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 8/27/2020. (cc: any counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (msa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Glenn v. United States of America Doc. 976 Case 2:17-cv-02740 Document 976 Filed 08/27/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY KEITH I. GLENN Movant, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-cv-02740 (CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 2:13-cr-00091-5) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ORDER Pending is Movant’s Petition to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence [Doc. 867], filed May 5, 2017. This action was previously referred to the Honorable Dwane L. Tinsley, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on June 1, 2020. Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended that the Court deny the Motion and dismiss this civil action 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) (emphasis added) (“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.”). 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 Leon-Ramirez, 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 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:17-cv-02740 Document 976 Filed 08/27/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 38 review absent 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 June 18, 2020. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 966], DENIES the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence [Doc. 867], 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 herein. ENTERED: August 27, 2020 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.
