From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Renfro v. Yardley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA ELKINS
Dec 11, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-92 (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 11, 2017)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-92

12-11-2017

BRIAN WADE RENFRO, Petitioner, v. LANCE YARDLEY, Warden, Respondent.


(BAILEY)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On this day, the above-styled matter came before this Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble [Doc. 22]. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Trumble for submission of a proposed report and a recommendation ("R&R"). Magistrate Judge Trumble filed his R&R on November 14, 2017, wherein he recommends this Court dismiss the petitioner's § 2254 petition without prejudice.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), this Court is required to make a de novo review of those portions of the magistrate judge's findings to which objection is made. However, 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). In addition, failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the right to appeal this Court's Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Snyder v. Ridenour , 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce , 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). Here, objections to Magistrate Judge Trumble's R&R were due within fourteen (14) days of receipt, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The docket indicates the petitioner accepted service on November 21, 2017 [Doc. 23]. To date, petitioner has not filed any objections. Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for clear error.

Conclusion

Upon careful review of the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 22] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. The Respondent's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. 16] is GRANTED. Accordingly, this Court ORDERS that the § 2254 petition [Doc. 1] be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the respondent and to STRIKE this case from the active docket of this Court.

As a final matter, upon an independent review of the record, this Court hereby DENIES a certificate of appealability, finding that Mr. Renfro has failed to make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

It is so ORDERED.

The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to any counsel of record and to mail a copy to the pro se petitioner.

DATED: December 11, 2017.

/s/ _________

JOHN PRESTON BAILEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Renfro v. Yardley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA ELKINS
Dec 11, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-92 (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 11, 2017)
Case details for

Renfro v. Yardley

Case Details

Full title:BRIAN WADE RENFRO, Petitioner, v. LANCE YARDLEY, Warden, Respondent.

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

Date published: Dec 11, 2017

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-92 (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 11, 2017)