From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Watson v. Young

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY
Nov 4, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-cv-04240 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 4, 2020)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-cv-04240

11-04-2020

MICHAEL WATSON, Petitioner, v. DAVID L. YOUNG, Respondent.


ORDER

Pending is Plaintiff's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1], filed October 30, 2017. This action was previously referred to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation ("PF&R"). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R on October 9, 2020. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court dismiss the case.

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) (emphasis added) ("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."). 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 October 29, 2020. No objections were filed.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 8], DENIES 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 herein.

ENTERED: November 4, 2020

/s/_________

Frank W. Volk

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Watson v. Young

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY
Nov 4, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-cv-04240 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 4, 2020)
Case details for

Watson v. Young

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL WATSON, Petitioner, v. DAVID L. YOUNG, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

Date published: Nov 4, 2020

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-cv-04240 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 4, 2020)