Lambka v. Superintendent, No. 2:2023cv00221 - Document 18 (S.D.W. Va. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER adopting the 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendations, and dismisses this action; the Clerk is to remove this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 8/29/2023. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (lca)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lambka v. Superintendent Doc. 18 Case 2:23-cv-00221 Document 18 Filed 08/29/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 82 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION NEIL LAMBKA, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NOS. 2:23-cv-00221 2:23-cv-00225 W.V. PAROLE, Respondent, ORDER By standing order entered on January 4, 2016, and filed in this case on March 22, 2023, (ECF No. 3), this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Eifert filed her PF&R on June 22, 2023, recommending that this Court deny Petitioner’s petitions for a writ of habeas corpus; deny his applications to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs as moot; deny his motion for appointment of counsel; and dismiss the two consolidates cases. (ECF No. 13.) This 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 PF&R 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 Plaintiff’s right to appeal this Court’s order. 28 U.S.C. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:23-cv-00221 Document 18 Filed 08/29/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 83 § 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). In addition, this Court need not conduct a 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 to the PF&R were originally due on June 10, 2023, (ECF No. 13), but this Court later sua sponte extended the deadline to August 24, 2023, (ECF No. 16). To date, Petitioner has not filed any objections, thus constituting a waiver of de novo review and his right to appeal this Court’s order. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 13), and DISMISSES this action. The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this matter from the Court’s docket. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 August 29, 2023
]]>
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.
