From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kamara v. Warden, FCI Beckley

United States District Court, Southern District of West Virginia
Jan 31, 2022
Civil Action 5:21-cv-00201 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 31, 2022)

Opinion

Civil Action 5:21-cv-00201

01-31-2022

AHMED KAMARA, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, FCI Beckley, Respondent.


ORDER

Frank W. Volk United States District Judge

Pending is Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1], filed April 1, 2021. 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”). Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on December 14, 2021. Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended that the Court deny the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

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 Leon-Ramirez, 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 December 28, 2021. No. objections were filed.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 5], DISMISSES the Petition for a 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.


Summaries of

Kamara v. Warden, FCI Beckley

United States District Court, Southern District of West Virginia
Jan 31, 2022
Civil Action 5:21-cv-00201 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 31, 2022)
Case details for

Kamara v. Warden, FCI Beckley

Case Details

Full title:AHMED KAMARA, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, FCI Beckley, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of West Virginia

Date published: Jan 31, 2022

Citations

Civil Action 5:21-cv-00201 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 31, 2022)

Citing Cases

Edwards v. Knight

Kamara v. Warden, FCI Beckley, No. 5:21-cv-00201, 2021 WL 6755470, at *2 (S.D. W.Va. Dec. 14, 2021) (citing…