Downey v. Maston, No. 2:2020cv00153 - Document 12 (S.D.W. Va. 2021)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 11 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and Directs that the Respondent's 8 Motion to Dismiss Petition as Untimely be GRANTED, the Petitioner's 1 Petition Under 28 U.S.C. §2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody be DISMISSED, and this matter be REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 1/8/2021. (cc: USMJ Aboulhosn; counsel of record and any unrepresented party) (msa)

Download PDF
Downey v. Maston Doc. 12 Case 2:20-cv-00153 Document 12 Filed 01/08/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 83 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION JAMES MICHAEL DOWNEY, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00153 RUSSELL MASTON, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On February 27, 2020, the Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed his Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Document 1). The Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petition as Untimely (Document 8) was filed on April 3, 2020. By Standing Order (Document 2) entered on February 28, 2020, this action 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 December 18, 2020, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 11) wherein it is recommended that this Court grant the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petition as Untimely (Document 8), dismiss the Petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Document 1), and remove this matter from the Court’s docket unless the Petitioner can demonstrate within the period of time allotted for objecting 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-00153 Document 12 Filed 01/08/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 84 to the Proposed Findings and Recommendation that his petition was filed within the proper time period or that circumstances exist which would permit equitable tolling of the limitation period. Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by January 4, 2021, and none were filed by either party. Additionally, within the objection period, the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that his petition was filed within the proper time period or that circumstances exist which would permit equitable tolling of the limitation period. 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 Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petition as Untimely (Document 8) be GRANTED, the Petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Document 1) be DISMISSED, and 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 January 8, 2021

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.