From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Whitley v. Maston

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION
May 6, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-04583 (S.D.W. Va. May. 6, 2020)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-04583

05-06-2020

RAYMOND WHITLEY, Petitioner, v. RUSSEL MASTON, Respondent.


ORDER

Before the Court is Petitioner Raymond J. Whitley's claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, filed on a form intended for petitions for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) By Standing Order entered on January 4, 2016, and filed in this case on December 21, 2017, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition ("PF&R"). (ECF No. 3.) This matter was subsequently transferred to Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on December 19, 2019. (ECF No. 11.) On February 13, 2020, Magistrate Judge Eifert entered her PF&R, recommending that the Court deny Petitioner's request for relief and dismiss this action from the docket of the Court. (ECF No. 13.)

This 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 Plaintiff'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). In addition, the Court need not conduct a 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 to the PF&R in this case were due on March 2, 2020. (ECF No. 13.) To date, Petitioner has failed to submit any objections in response to the PF&R, thus constituting a waiver of de novo review and Petitioner's right to appeal this Court's order.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 13), and DISMISSES this action WITH PREJUDICE from the docket of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

ENTER: May 6, 2020

/s/_________

THOMAS E. JOHNSTON, CHIEF JUDGE


Summaries of

Whitley v. Maston

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION
May 6, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-04583 (S.D.W. Va. May. 6, 2020)
Case details for

Whitley v. Maston

Case Details

Full title:RAYMOND WHITLEY, Petitioner, v. RUSSEL MASTON, Respondent.

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

Date published: May 6, 2020

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-04583 (S.D.W. Va. May. 6, 2020)