Crum v. Warden et al, No. 5:2020cv00655 - Document 26 (S.D.W. Va. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER adopting the 21 Proposed Findings and Recommendations; denying Petitioner's 1 and 7 Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees or Costs; denying Petitioner's 11 Motion for Temporary Injunction; dismissing Petitioner's 10 Amended Complaint and dismissing this matter. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 8/9/2021. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (msa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Crum v. Warden et al Doc. 26 Case 5:20-cv-00655 Document 26 Filed 08/09/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 133 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY DAVID HALL CRUM, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-cv-00655 WARDEN D.L. YOUNG, et al., Respondent. ORDER Pending are Petitioner’s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [Docs. 1, 7]; Motion for Temporary Injunction [Doc. 11]; and Amended Complaint [Doc. 10]. This action was previously referred to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R on May 18, 2021. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court deny Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, deny his Motion for Temporary Injunction, dismiss his Amended Complaint, 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) (“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-00655 Document 26 Filed 08/09/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 134 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 June 4, 2021. No specific objections were filed. Inasmuch as Petitioner filed a general objection in “opposition and total rejection,” which failed to direct the Court to any specific error in the PF&R, the Court finds the objection to be without merit. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 21], DENIES Petitioner’s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [Docs. 1, 7], DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for Temporary Injunction [Doc. 11], DISMISSES Petitioner’s Amended Complaint [Docs. 10], 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: 2 August 9, 2021
]]>
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.
