Terrell v. United States of America, No. 5:2016cv10401 - Document 71 (S.D.W. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Adopting the 70 Proposed Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; denying the Petitioner's 54 Motion and 58 Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255); removing this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 4/29/2019. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party; Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn) (btm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Terrell v. United States of America Doc. 71 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION KEVIN WRAY TERRELL, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-cv-10401 (Criminal No. 5:15-cr-00105) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On November 2, 2016, the Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct sentence (Document 54). An amended motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct sentence (Document 58) was filed on March 29, 2017. By Standing Order (Document 55) entered on November 2, 2016, the matter was referred to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, 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. On March 28, 2019, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 70) wherein it is recommended that the Petitioner’s § 2255 motion and amended § 2255 motion be denied, and that this matter be removed from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by April 15, 2019. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Neither party has timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and 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). 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 the Petitioner’s motion and amended motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct sentence (Document 54 & 58) be DENIED, and that this matter be REMOVED from the Court’s docket. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 April 29, 2019
]]>
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.
