Fannon v. Young et al, No. 5:2017cv04036 - Document 11 (S.D.W. Va. 2020)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court ADOPTS the 9 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, DISMISSES the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and DISMISSES this matter. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 6/23/2020. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (msa)

Download PDF
Fannon v. Young et al Doc. 11 Case 5:17-cv-04036 Document 11 Filed 06/23/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 38 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY CHRISTIAN P. FANNON, Petitioner, v. WARDEN D.L. YOUNG, et al CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-cv-04036 Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1], filed September 25, 2017. This action was previously referred to United States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R on April 1, 2020. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court dismiss the petition and remove the matter from the Court’s docket. The Court need not 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. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (emphasis added) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Petitioner’s right to appeal the Court’s order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. De Leon-Ramirez, 925 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 2019) (noting parties may not typically “appeal a magistrate judge’s findings that were not objected to below, as § 636(b) doesn’t require de novo Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:17-cv-04036 Document 11 Filed 06/23/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 39 review absent objection.”); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989). Further, the Court need not conduct 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 this case were due on April 20, 2020. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 9], DISMISSES the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1], and DISMISSES the matter. The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTERED: June 23, 2020 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.