Facts
- Kevin Lee Ross, incarcerated in Somerset County Jail, filed a complaint against a federal prosecutor, probation officer, and two relatives [lines="2-6"].
- Ross submitted a motion for an injunction to prevent the separation of his personal property and legal materials by jail personnel [lines="8-9"], [lines="54-55"].
- The court referred Ross's motion to a Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation [lines="20-21"].
- The recommendation noted that Ross did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm [lines="23-26"].
- The requested injunctive relief targeted non-parties, namely federal Marshals and jail personnel [lines="94-96"].
Issues
- Whether Ross demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits for his injunction request [lines="62-67"].
- Whether Ross showed that he would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction [lines="70-90"].
- Whether the court can issue an injunction against non-parties [lines="93-107"].
Holdings
- The court found that Ross's claims did not establish a likelihood of success on the merits, weighing against injunctive relief [lines="66-67"].
- The court concluded that Ross failed to show irreparable harm, further undermining his request for an injunction [lines="90-91"].
- The court held that an injunction could not be issued against non-parties, as they must be bound by such orders [lines="98-107"].
OPINION
Case Information
*1 Case 5:23-cv-00778 Document 14 Filed 06/07/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 93 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY
JAMAICA DAJUAN WHITTED,
Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-cv-00778 WARDEN,
Respondent.
ORDER
Pending is Petitioner’s Letter-Form Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 11], filed on April 4, 2024. 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 May 10, 2024. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended the Court grant Petitioner’s Motion and dismiss this action.
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) (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
Case 5:23-cv-00778 Document 14 Filed 06/07/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 94 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 May 28, 2024. [Doc. 13]. No objections were filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ Doc. 13 ], GRANTS Petitioner’s Letter-Form Motion to Withdraw or Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ Doc. 11 ], DISMISSES Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [ 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.
ENTER: June 7, 2024 2