Bain v. Heckard, No. 5:2023cv00346 - Document 14 (S.D.W. Va. 2024)

Court Description: ORDER adopting the 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge Tinsley; DENYING AS MOOT the Petitioner's 1 Petition and Memorandum of Support; GRANTING the Respondent's 12 Motion to Dismiss; and DISMISSING the matter. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 6/4/2024. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (jsa)

Download PDF
Bain v. Heckard Doc. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY TAMIEN DERRICK BAIN, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-cv-00346 HECKARD, Respondent. ORDER Pending are (1) Tamien Derrick Bain’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1], filed on April 1, 2023, and (2) Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for Mootness [Doc. 12], filed on March 15, 2024. This action was previously referred to the Honorable Dwane L. Tinsley, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). [Doc. 3]. Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on May 6, 2024. [Doc. 13]. Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended that the Court dismiss as moot the Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus Petition and dismiss it from the docket. [Id.]. The PF&R provides that Mr. Bain was released on February 14, 2024, and that “Petitioner has been released from BOP custody without any collateral consequences under the circumstances presented; thus, this court cannot grant him his requested relief.” [Doc. 13 at 2]. 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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 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 May 23, 2024. [Doc. 7]. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 13], DENIES AS MOOT the Petitioner’s Petition and Memorandum of Support [Doc. 1], GRANTS the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 12], 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 June 4,, 2024

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.