Pollard v. Young, No. 5:2018cv01209 - Document 18 (S.D.W. Va. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing that the Court ADOPTS the 16 PF&R, GRANTS the 12 Motion to Dismiss, DISMISSES the 1 Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241, and ORDERS that this case be removed from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 5/13/2020. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (btm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Pollard v. Young Doc. 18 Case 5:18-cv-01209 Document 18 Filed 05/13/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 128 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY ROBERT DENARD POLLARD, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-cv-01209 D.L. YOUNG, Warden, FCI Beckley, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending is the Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1]. Also pending is the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 12]. This action was previously referred to the Honorable Cheryl A. Eifert, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Eifert filed her PF&R on December 11, 2019 [Doc. 16]. Magistrate Judge Eifert recommended that the Court grant the Motion to Dismiss and dismiss the Petition. 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) (parties may not typically “appeal a Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:18-cv-01209 Document 18 Filed 05/13/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 129 magistrate judge’s findings that were not objected to below, as § 636(b) doesn’t require de novo 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 December 30, 2019. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 16], GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 12], DISMISSES the Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1], and ORDERS that this case be removed from the Court’s docket. The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party herein. ENTERED: May 13, 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.
