From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Salomon v. Heckard

United States District Court, Southern District of West Virginia
Jul 5, 2022
Civil Action 5:22-cv-00081 (S.D.W. Va. Jul. 5, 2022)

Opinion

Civil Action 5:22-cv-00081

07-05-2022

CHRISTOPHER SALOMON, Petitioner, v. KATINA HECKARD, Warden, FCI Beckley, Respondent.


ORDER

FRANK W. VOLK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pending is Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1], filed February 16, 2022. 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 June 6, 2022, and recommended the Court grant the Respondent's request for dismissal, deny the Petition, and remove the matter from the docket. [Doc. 9].

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 June 23, 2022. No objections were filed.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 9], GRANTS Respondent's request for dismissal [Doc. 6], DISMISSES the Petition for 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

Salomon v. Heckard

United States District Court, Southern District of West Virginia
Jul 5, 2022
Civil Action 5:22-cv-00081 (S.D.W. Va. Jul. 5, 2022)
Case details for

Salomon v. Heckard

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOPHER SALOMON, Petitioner, v. KATINA HECKARD, Warden, FCI Beckley…

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

Date published: Jul 5, 2022

Citations

Civil Action 5:22-cv-00081 (S.D.W. Va. Jul. 5, 2022)

Citing Cases

Martin v. Ray

Assuming, for the sake of argument, however that he relies on Huihui for the proposition that exhaustion…

Caldwell v. Weber

Section 2241 does not contain an exhaustion provision; nevertheless, “courts have judicially imposed a duty…