From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ford v. Young

United States District Court, Southern District of West Virginia
Aug 31, 2021
Civil Action 5:20-cv-00455 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 31, 2021)

Opinion

Civil Action 5:20-cv-00455

08-31-2021

NORMAN J. FORD, Petitioner, v. D.L. YOUNG, Warden, FCI Beckley, Respondent.


ORDER

Frank W. Volk, United States District Judge

Pending are Petitioner Norman J. Ford's pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241 [Doc. 2], filed July 2, 2020, and Respondent Warden Young's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 10], filed October 2, 2020. 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 August 10, 2021. Magistrate Judge Eifert recommended that the Court deny Mr. Ford's Section 2241 Petition, grant Warden Young's Motion to Dismiss, dismiss this matter with prejudice, and remove it 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 August 21, 2021. No objections were filed.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 15], DENIES Mr. Ford's Section 2241 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 2], GRANTS Warden Young's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 10], DISMISSES this matter WITH PREJUDICE, and REMOVES the case 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

Ford v. Young

United States District Court, Southern District of West Virginia
Aug 31, 2021
Civil Action 5:20-cv-00455 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 31, 2021)
Case details for

Ford v. Young

Case Details

Full title:NORMAN J. FORD, Petitioner, v. D.L. YOUNG, Warden, FCI Beckley, Respondent.

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

Date published: Aug 31, 2021

Citations

Civil Action 5:20-cv-00455 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 31, 2021)