Mullins v. United States

District Court, S.D. West Virginia·Decided October 22, 2020·No. 2:19-cv-00751·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

CHARLESTON DIVISION

ROBERT DANIEL MULLINS,

Petitioner,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-cv-00751 (Criminal No. 2:18-cr-00075)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On October 15, 2019, the Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct sentence (Document 43). By Standing Order (Document 49) entered on October 16, 2019, the matter was referred to the Honorable Cheryl A. Eifert, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission to this Court of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On September 25, 2020, Magistrate Judge Eifert submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 68) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny the Petitioner’s § 2555 motion. Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by October 13, 2020. Neither party has timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation. The Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the 1 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 Petitioner’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). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS that the Petitioner’s § 2255 motion (Document 43) be DENIED, that this matter be DISMISSED with prejudice, and that this matter be REMOVED from the Court’s docket. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge Eifert, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.

ENTER: October 22, 2020 Dike CO. Seageh/ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mullins v. United States, (S.D.W. Va. 2020).

Mullins v. United States (Mullins v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Thomas v. Arn
474 U.S. 140 (Supreme Court, 1986)
United States v. Edward Lester Schronce, Jr.
727 F.2d 91 (Fourth Circuit, 1984)
Snyder v. Ridenour
889 F.2d 1363 (Fourth Circuit, 1989)