Brown v. U. S. Parole Commission, No. 5:2022cv00506 - Document 14 (S.D.W. Va. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER adopting the 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendations; denying Petitioner's 1 Writ of Habeas Corpus; granting Defendant's 9 Motion to Dismisses and dismisses the matter with prejudice. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 6/20/2023. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (lca)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Brown v. U. S. Parole Commission Doc. 14 Case 5:22-cv-00506 Document 14 Filed 06/20/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 64 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY LAWRENCE EDWARD BROWN, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-cv-00506 WARDEN, FCI BECKLEY, Respondent. ORDER Pending are Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1], filed November 7, 2022, and Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 9], filed January 12, 2023. 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 March 23, 2023. Magistrate Judge Eifert recommended that the Court deny Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, grant Respondent’s request for dismissal, and dismiss this action with prejudice. 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 5:22-cv-00506 Document 14 Filed 06/20/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 65 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 April 10, 2023. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 13], DENIES Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1], GRANTS Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 9], and DISMISSES the matter with prejudice. The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 June 20, 2023
]]>
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.
