Covington v. Young, No. 5:2020cv00435 - Document 11 (S.D.W. Va. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER The Court ADOPTS the 10 Proposed Findings and Recommendations; GRANTS the Respondents 8 Request for Dismissal, DISMISSES the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and the matter. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 2/8/2022. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (mfo)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Covington v. Young Doc. 11 Case 5:20-cv-00435 Document 11 Filed 02/08/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 127 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY RONNIE LEE COVINGTON, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-cv-00435 D.L. YOUNG, Warden, FCI Beckley, Respondent. ORDER Pending are Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1], filed June 25, 2020, and Respondent’s request for dismissal [Doc. 8], filed August 6, 2020. 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 September 20, 2021. Magistrate Judge Eifert recommended that the Court deny the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and grant Respondent’s request for dismissal and that this action be dismissed. 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) (“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.” (emphasis added)). 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 LeonRamirez, 925 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 2019) (Parties may not typically “appeal a magistrate judge’s Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:20-cv-00435 Document 11 Filed 02/08/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 128 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 October 4, 2021. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 10], GRANTS Respondent’s request for dismissal [Doc. 8], 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. ENTER: 2 February 8, 2022
]]>
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.
