noting 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.”
How later courts described this case
- noting 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.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BECKLEY
NORMA BROWN GRIFFIN,
Petitioner,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-cv-00196
PATRICK MORRISEY,
West Virginia Attorney General,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending is Petitioner Norma Brown Griffin’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 [Doc. 2], filed March 20, 2019. This action was previously referred to
United States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn for submission of proposed findings and a
recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R on November 21, 2019.
Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court (1) deny Respondent Attorney General
Patrick Morrisey’s Response requesting dismissal of Ms. Griffin’s Section 2254 Petition for failure
to exhaust; (2) grant Ms. Griffin a stay, and remove this action from the active docket pending
further order of the Court, so that Ms. Griffin may pursue her State court remedies for her
unexhausted claims and condition the stay on Ms. Griffin pursing her State court remedies within
thirty (30) days of the date that the stay order is entered; and (3) hold in abeyance Ms. Griffin’s
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 pending exhaustion of her State court
remedies, and require Ms. Griffin to return to federal court within thirty (30) days after she has
exhausted her State court remedies and seek a stay lift.
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) (“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.”) (emphasis
added). 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) (noting 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 December 9, 2019.
No objections were filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 27]; DENIES Attorney General
Morrisey’s Response requesting dismissal of Ms. Griffin’s Petition [Doc. 22]; GRANTS Ms.
Griffin a STAY conditioned on the pursuit of her State court remedies within thirty (30) days of
the entry of this order; RETIRES this action to the inactive docket pending further order of the
Court, so that Ms. Griffin may pursue her State court remedies for her unexhausted claims; holds
in ABEYANCE Ms. Griffin’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 2] pending exhaustion
of her State court remedies; and REQUIRES Ms. Griffin to return to federal court within thirty
(30) days after she has exhausted her State court remedies and seek a stay lift.
The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record
and any unrepresented party.
ENTERED: December 31, 2019
©? W. Volk
Tat United States District Judge