Hurte v. United States of America, No. 5:2008cv00893 - Document 243 (S.D.W. Va. 2011)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: adopting the 241 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; DENYING the 168 Application to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255), filed by Robert Hurte, II; directing the Clerk to remove this action from the Court's active docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 9/6/2011. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION ROBERT HURTE, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:08-cv-0893 (Criminal No. 5:06-cr-0124) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Robert Hurte, pro se, (Petitioner) brings this action for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. [Docket 168.] On July 3, 2008, this Court referred Petitioner s habeas application to the Honorable R. Clarke VanDervort Magistrate Judge for proposed findings of fact and a recommendation ( PF&R ). (Docket 170.) On June 30, 2008, Magistrate VanDervort submitted findings of fact and recommended that the Court dismiss Petitioner s Motion with prejudice because his application is without merit. (Docket 241.) The Court adopts Magistrate VanDervort s 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). 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 18, 2011. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court hereby (1) DENIES Petitioner s application [Docket 168] with prejudice; and (2) DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this action 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: September 6, 2011 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.