From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bennett v. Warden FCI Beckley

United States District Court, Southern District of West Virginia
Jul 16, 2024
Civil Action 5:23-cv-00477 (S.D.W. Va. Jul. 16, 2024)

Opinion

Civil Action 5:23-cv-00477

07-16-2024

MARCUS BENNETT, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, FCI BECKLEY, Respondent.


ORDER

Frank W. Volk, United States District Judge

Pending is Petitioner Marcus Bennett's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1], filed July 10, 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 June 18, 2024. Magistrate Judge Eifert recommended that the Court grant Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, dismiss Mr. Bennett's Section 2241 Petition, and remove this matter from the docket.

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 July 5, 2024. No objections were filed.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 9], GRANTS Respondent's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 6], DISMISSES Mr. Bennett's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1], and REMOVES this matter from the docket.

The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party.


Summaries of

Bennett v. Warden FCI Beckley

United States District Court, Southern District of West Virginia
Jul 16, 2024
Civil Action 5:23-cv-00477 (S.D.W. Va. Jul. 16, 2024)
Case details for

Bennett v. Warden FCI Beckley

Case Details

Full title:MARCUS BENNETT, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, FCI BECKLEY, Respondent.

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

Date published: Jul 16, 2024

Citations

Civil Action 5:23-cv-00477 (S.D.W. Va. Jul. 16, 2024)

Citing Cases

Fleming v. Napier

Petitioner has presented no allegations or proof that he has been assessed with a PATTERN score demonstrating…

Davis v. Brown

to earn and receive time credits, but may not be eligible to have those credits applied under 18 U.S.C. §…