Easterling v. United States of America et al, No. 5:2008cv00894 - Document 6 (S.D.W. Va. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER: adopting the 5 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; dismissing the Petitioner's Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus; ordering this matter removed from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 7/13/2011. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Easterling v. United States of America et al Doc. 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION COREY EASTERLING, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:08-cv-00894 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Respondents. ORDER The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Docket 1], filed July 3, 2008. By Order [Docket 2] entered on July 3, 2008, this action was referred to the Honorable R. Clarke VanDervort, 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(b)(1)(B). On June 23, 2011, the Magistrate Judge submitted Proposed Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) [Docket 5] wherein it is recommended that this Court dismiss Petitioner’s Petition as moot and remove this 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. § 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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 in this case were due on July 11, 2011. To date, no party has filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommendation. As noted in the PF&R, Petitioner appears to have been released from custody on January 2, 2009. The PF&R was sent to his updated address on June 24, 2011. 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 Petitioner’s Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Docket 1] be DISMISSED. The Court further ORDERS that this matter be removed from its docket. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 July 13, 2011
]]>
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.
