Crawford v. U. S. Parole Commission, No. 5:2006cv00541 - Document 10 (S.D.W. Va. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: adopting the 9 Proposed Findings and Recommendations; denying Petitioner's 1 Application to Proceed in forma pauperis; dismissing as moot Petitioner's 1 Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus; directing the Clerk to remove this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 7/8/2009. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION CURTIS E. CRAWFORD, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:06-cv-00541 UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court are Petitioner s Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Docket 1 at 7 12], and Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [Docket 1 at 5 6.]. The case was originally filed in the District of Columbia on June 5, 2006, and was transferred to this Court on July 6, 2006. By Standing Order entered on August 1, 2006, and filed in this case on January 5, 2009, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (PF&R). Magistrate Judge VanDervort filed his PF&R [Docket 9] on June 16, 2009, recommending that this Court DENY the application to proceed in forma pauperis, DISMISS AS MOOT the application for writ of habeas corpus and remove matter from the Court s docket. 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. ยง 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 in the instant case were due on July 6, 2009. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly the Court ADOPTS the recommendation contained in the PF&R [Docket 9], DENIES Petitioner s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [Docket 1 at 5 6], DISMISSES AS MOOT Petitioner s Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Docket 1 at 7 12], and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove the matter from the Court s docket. A separate Judgment Order will enter this day implementing the rulings contained herein. 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: July 8, 2009 _________________________________________ THOMAS E. JOHNSTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
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.
