Hatfield v. Craig, No. 5:2008cv01178 - Document 13 (S.D.W. Va. 2011)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: denying the 12 Motion for Continuance filed by David Lynn Hatfield; adopting the 10 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; ordering that Petitioner 's 1 Application Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 5 Notice to Amend Section 2231 be DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 10/21/2011. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION DAVID LYNN HATFIELD, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:08-cv-01178 T. R. CRAIG, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION The Court has reviewed Petitioner s Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Notice to Amend § 2241 (Documents 1 and 5). By Order (Document 2) entered on October 14, 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 September 29, 2011, the Magistrate Judge submitted Proposed Findings and Recommendation ( PF&R ) (Document 10) wherein it is recommended that this Court dismiss Petitioner s petition 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 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 by October 17, 2011. No objections were filed by that date. The Court has also reviewed Petitioner s Motion for Continuance (Document 12) filed October 20, 2011, wherein he asks for a continuance of the deadline for filing objections. After careful consideration, the Court finds that Petitioner has failed to allege any facts in support of the motion and has, therefore, failed to show good cause why the same should be granted. Therefore, the Court ORDERS that the motion be DENIED. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 10) be ADOPTED, and further ORDERS that Petitioner s Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Notice to Amend § 2231 (Documents 1 and 5) be DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court s docket. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: October 21, 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.