Summary
adopting proposed findings and recommendations analyzing a petitioner's challenge to administrative segregation under § 2241 and declining to determine whether § 2241 or § 2254 is the appropriate procedural vehicle in that case because it did not present a dispositive issue
Summary of this case from Taylor v. Warden Allendale Corr. Inst.Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-21893
12-15-2014
ROY F. HILLBERRY, II, Plaintiff, v. DAVID BALLARD, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner Roy F. Hillberry's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [ECF 1] and Respondent David Ballard's motion for summary judgment [ECF 10]. By Standing Order entered April 8, 2013, and filed in this case on August 20, 2013, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition (PF&R). On November 13, 2014, Magistrate Judge Eifert issued a PF&R [ECF 18] recommending that the Court deny Petitioner's § 2241 motion, grant Respondent's motion for summary judgment, and dismiss this case with prejudice.
The Court is not required to 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. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Petitioner's right to appeal this Court's Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F .2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). In addition, this Court need not conduct a 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 to the November 13, 2014, PF&R in this case were due on December 1, 2014. To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 18], DENIES Petitioner's § 2241 motion [ECF 1], GRANTS Respondent's motion for summary judgment [ECF 10], DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE this action, and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the Court's docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.
ENTER: December 15, 2014
/s/_________
THOMAS E. JOHNSTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE