Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-cv-1461
06-23-2020
WILLIE QUARTERMAN, Petitioner, v. WARDEN D.L. YOUNG, FCI BECKLEY, Respondent.
ORDER
Pending are Petitioner Willie Quarterman's pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1], filed November 21, 2018, and Respondent Warden D.L. Young's requests for dismissal [Docs. 10, 11, & 15].
This matter was previously referred to the Honorable Cheryl A. Eifert, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation ("PF&R"). Magistrate Judge Eifert filed her PF&R on March 11, 2020. Magistrate Judge Eifert recommended that the Court deny Mr. Quarterman's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1], grant Warden D.L. Young's requests for dismissal [Docs. 10, 11, & 15], dismiss this action with prejudice, and remove this matter from the Court's docket.
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 May 29, 2020. No objections were filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 18], DENIES Mr. Quarterman's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1], GRANTS Warden D.L Young's requests for dismissal [Docs. 10, 11, & 15], DISMISSES this action with prejudice, and REMOVES this matter from the Court's docket.
The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party.
ENTERED: June 23, 2020
/s/_________
Frank W. Volk
United States District Judge