Hawk v. Coakley

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

RAYMOND E. HAWK, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-cv-26395 JOE COAKLEY, Warden, FCI Beckley, Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On October 1, 2014, the Petitioner, appearing pro se, filed his Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Document 1). By Standing Order (Document 3) entered on October 6, 2014, the matter was referred to the Honorable Dwane L. Tinsley, 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 December 15, 2017, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 8) wherein it is recommended that the Petitioner’s Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Document 1) be denied, and that this matter be dismissed from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by January 2, 2018.1 1The docket reflects that the Proposed Findings and Recommendation mailed to the Petitioner was returned as undeliverable on December 28, 2017.

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 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 Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Document 1) be DENIED, and that this matter be DISMISSED from the Court’s docket.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge Tinsley, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.

ENTER: January 3, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA