Mullins v. United States of America, No. 2:2019cv00751 - Document 69 (S.D.W. Va. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER as to Robert Daniel Mullins; adopting and incorporating the 68 Proposed Findings and Recommendations; denying 43 MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255) as to Robert Daniel Mullins; directing that this matter is dismissed with prejudice and that this matter be removed from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 10/22/2020. (cc: Judge, USA, counsel, movant, Mag. Judge) (tmr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Mullins v. United States of America Doc. 69 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION ROBERT DANIEL MULLINS, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-cv-00751 (Criminal No. 2:18-cr-00075) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On October 15, 2019, the Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct sentence (Document 43). By Standing Order (Document 49) entered on October 16, 2019, the matter was referred to the Honorable Cheryl A. Eifert, 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 September 25, 2020, Magistrate Judge Eifert submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 68) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny the Petitioner’s § 2555 motion. Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by October 13, 2020. 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 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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 motion (Document 43) be DENIED, that this matter be DISMISSED with prejudice, 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 Eifert, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 October 22, 2020
]]>
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.
