From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pate v. Young

United States District Court, Southern District of West Virginia
Apr 6, 2022
Civil Action 5:19-cv-00600 (S.D.W. Va. Apr. 6, 2022)

Opinion

Civil Action 5:19-cv-00600

04-06-2022

DAVID PATE, Petitioner, v. DAVID L. YOUNG, Warden and FCI Beckley, Respondents.


ORDER

Frank W. Volk United States District Judge

Pending is Petitioner David Pate's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1], filed August 19, 2019. This action was previously referred to the Honorable Dwane L. Tinsley, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on March 4, 2022. Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended that the Court dismiss the petition.

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 March 21, 2022. No. objections were filed.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 16], DISMISSES the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1], and DISMISSES the matter.

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


Summaries of

Pate v. Young

United States District Court, Southern District of West Virginia
Apr 6, 2022
Civil Action 5:19-cv-00600 (S.D.W. Va. Apr. 6, 2022)
Case details for

Pate v. Young

Case Details

Full title:DAVID PATE, Petitioner, v. DAVID L. YOUNG, Warden and FCI Beckley…

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

Date published: Apr 6, 2022

Citations

Civil Action 5:19-cv-00600 (S.D.W. Va. Apr. 6, 2022)