From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morris v. Fox

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Nov 22, 2011
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11CV43 (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 22, 2011)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11CV43

11-22-2011

RICHARD L. MORRIS, SR., Petitioner, v. WILLIAM FOX, Warden, St. Mary's Correctional Center, Respondent.


(Judge Keeley)


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On March 31, 2011, pro se petitioner, Richard L. Morris, Sr. ("Morris"), filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court referred this matter to United States Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert for initial screening and a report and recommendation in accordance with LR PL P 2.

On November 1, 2011, Magistrate Judge Seibert issued an Opinion and Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court grant the respondent's motion for summary judgment, deny Morris' motion to vacate his sentence, and dismiss this case with prejudice (dkt. no. 26). Magistrate Judge Seibert determined that, of the petitioner's four grounds for habeas relief, Morris had not exhausted his fourth claim, the state court's adjudication of the other three claims was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law, and Morris had failed to set forth any valid claims. The R&R also specifically warned Morris and the defendant that his failure to object to the recommendation would result in the waiver of any appellate rights he may have. The parties, however, filed no objections.

The failure to object to the Report and Recommendation not only waives the appellate rights in this matter, but also relieves the Court of any obligation to conduct a de novo review of the issue presented. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-153 (1985); Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1997).

Consequently, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety, GRANTS the respondent's motion for summary judgment (dkt. no. 18), DENIES the motion to vacate (dkt. no. 1) and ORDERS the case DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and stricken from the Court's docket.

It is so ORDERED.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to enter a separate judgment order and to transmit copies of both orders to counsel of record and to the pro se petitioner, certified mail, return receipt requested.

IRENE M. KEELEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Morris v. Fox

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Nov 22, 2011
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11CV43 (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 22, 2011)
Case details for

Morris v. Fox

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD L. MORRIS, SR., Petitioner, v. WILLIAM FOX, Warden, St. Mary's…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

Date published: Nov 22, 2011

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11CV43 (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 22, 2011)