From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mullins v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Oct 22, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-cv-00751 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 22, 2020)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-cv-00751 Criminal No. 2:18-cr-00075

10-22-2020

ROBERT DANIEL MULLINS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On October 15, 2019, the Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct sentence (Document 43). By Standing Order (Document 49) entered on October 16, 2019, the matter was referred to the Honorable Cheryl A. Eifert, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission to this Court of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.

On September 25, 2020, Magistrate Judge Eifert submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 68) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny the Petitioner's § 2555 motion. Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by October 13, 2020.

Neither party has timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommendation. 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 Petitioner'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).

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS that the Petitioner's § 2255 motion (Document 43) be DENIED, that this matter be DISMISSED with prejudice, and that this matter be REMOVED from the Court's docket.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge Eifert, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.

ENTER: October 22, 2020

/s/_________

IRENE C. BERGER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA


Summaries of

Mullins v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Oct 22, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-cv-00751 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 22, 2020)
Case details for

Mullins v. United States

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT DANIEL MULLINS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

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

Date published: Oct 22, 2020

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-cv-00751 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 22, 2020)