From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jamie v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Feb 23, 2015
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-30583 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 23, 2015)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-30583

02-23-2015

SHIDA JAMIE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.


(Criminal No. 2:12-cr-00062-2)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Movant's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody ("Movant's § 2255 Motion"). (ECF 138.) By Standing Order entered on April 8, 2013, and filed in this case on December 12, 2013, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition ("PF&R"). (ECF 140.) Magistrate Judge VanDervort filed his PF&R on January 28, 2015, which recommends that this Court deny Movant's § 2255 Motion and remove this matter from the Court's docket. (ECF 151.)

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 Plaintiff'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 PF&R in this case were due by February 17, 2015. To date, no objections were filed.

Accordingly the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, DENIES Movant's § 2255 Motion, (ECF 138), and DISMISSES this action from the docket of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

ENTERED: February 23, 2015

/s/_________

THOMAS E. JOHNSTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Jamie v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Feb 23, 2015
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-30583 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 23, 2015)
Case details for

Jamie v. United States

Case Details

Full title:SHIDA JAMIE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION

Date published: Feb 23, 2015

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-30583 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 23, 2015)