Filed: Jan. 14, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 14, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THOMAS E. JOHNSTON , District Judge . Pending before the Court is Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255, (ECF 35), as amended by Petitioner's arguments in his memorandum of law in support, (ECF 49) (together, the " 2255 Motion"). By Standing Order entered on September 2, 2010, and filed in this case on February 26, 2013, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Mary E. Stanle
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THOMAS E. JOHNSTON , District Judge . Pending before the Court is Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255, (ECF 35), as amended by Petitioner's arguments in his memorandum of law in support, (ECF 49) (together, the " 2255 Motion"). By Standing Order entered on September 2, 2010, and filed in this case on February 26, 2013, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Mary E. Stanley..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THOMAS E. JOHNSTON, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, (ECF 35), as amended by Petitioner's arguments in his memorandum of law in support, (ECF 49) (together, the "§ 2255 Motion"). By Standing Order entered on September 2, 2010, and filed in this case on February 26, 2013, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Mary E. Stanley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition ("PF&R"). On April 8, 2013, the Clerk transferred the referral of this matter from Magistrate Judge Stanley to Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley. Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on December 17, 2015, in which he recommends that this Court deny the § 2255 Motion and dismiss this matter from the Court's docket. (ECF 50.)
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). 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, this 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 by January 4, 2016. To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF 50), DENIES the § 2255 Motion, (ECF 35 and 49), DISMISSES this action, and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the Court's docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.
