Luevano v. C.I.A. Podcast in D.C. et al, No. 2:2023cv00637 - Document 9 (S.D.W. Va. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER adopting the 6 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn; overruling Petitioner's 7 Objections; denying Petitioner's 4 Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs; and dismissing Petitio ner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus WITHOUT PREJUDICE; further directing the Clerk to remove this matter from the Court's active docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 12/20/2023. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (jsa)

Download PDF
Luevano v. C.I.A. Podcast in D.C. et al Doc. 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION JAIME LUEVANO, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-cv-00637 C.I.A. PODCAST IN D.C., et al., Respondents. ORDER Pending before the Court is Petitioner Jaime Luevano’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF No. 1.) Also pending is Petitioner’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs. (ECF No. 4.) By Standing Order entered in this case on September 27, 2023, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R on October 30, 2023, recommending that this Court (1) deny Petitioner’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees and (2) dismiss his petition without prejudice for improper venue. (ECF No. 6 at 7.) 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 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Snyder 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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 due on November 6, 2023, and Petitioner filed timely objections on October 30, 2023. 1 (ECF No. 7.) However, these objections do not point the Court to any specific error in the PF&R. As such, Petitioner has waived his right to de novo review. The Court thus OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections, (ECF No. 7), ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 6), DENIES Petitioner’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, (ECF No. 4), and DISMISSES Petitioner Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (ECF No. 1), WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this matter from the Court’s active 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: 1 December 20, 2023 Petitioner also filed additional objections on November 13, 2023. objections are untimely, the Court declines to consider them. 2 (ECF No. 8.) Because these additional

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.