McArthur v. State of West Virginia, No. 2:2022cv00297 - Document 8 (S.D.W. Va. 2022)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 7 Proposed Findings and Recommendation and directing that Petitioner's 2 Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody be dismissed without prejudice pu rsuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and L. R. Civ. P. 41.1., that this action be removed from the Court's docket, and that the Petitioner's 1 Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs be denied as moot. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 12/13/2022. (cc: Judge, Magistrate Judge Eifert, counsel of record, any unrepresented party) (msa)

Download PDF
McArthur v. State of West Virginia Doc. 8 Case 2:22-cv-00297 Document 8 Filed 12/13/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 34 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION TERRANCE A. MCARTHUR, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-cv-00297 STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On July 21, 2022, the Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed his Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1) and his Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Document 2). By Standing Order (Document 4) entered on July 22, 2022, this action 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 November 14, 2022, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 7) wherein it is recommended that the Petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Document 2) be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and L. R. Civ. P. 41.1., that this action be removed from the Court’s docket, and that the Petitioner’s Application to Proceed 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:22-cv-00297 Document 8 Filed 12/13/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 35 Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1) be denied as moot. Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by November 14, 2022. 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 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 Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Document 2) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and L. R. Civ. P. 41.1., that this action be REMOVED from the Court’s docket, and that the Petitioner’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 1) be DENIED AS MOOT. 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 December 13, 2022

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.