From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Murray v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION
May 11, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-cv-00106 (S.D.W. Va. May. 11, 2020)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-cv-00106 Criminal No. 2:17-cr-00011

05-11-2020

CLARENCE MURRAY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On February 6, 2019, the Petitioner, appearing pro se, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct sentence (Document 68). On May 9, 2019, the United States filed its response/motion (Document 74) seeking dismissal of the Petitioner's 2255 motion.

By Standing Order (Document 69) entered on February 12, 2019, this action 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 April 16, 2020, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 76) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny the Petitioner's § 2555 motion, grant the Respondent's response/motion to dismiss, dismiss this matter with prejudice, and remove this matter from the Court's docket.

Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by May 4, 2020, and none were filed by either party.

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 § 2555 motion (Document 68) be DENIED, the Respondent's response/motion to dismiss (Document 74) be GRANTED, this matter be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and 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: May 11, 2020

/s/_________

IRENE C. BERGER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA


Summaries of

Murray v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION
May 11, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-cv-00106 (S.D.W. Va. May. 11, 2020)
Case details for

Murray v. United States

Case Details

Full title:CLARENCE MURRAY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

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

Date published: May 11, 2020

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-cv-00106 (S.D.W. Va. May. 11, 2020)