Allen v. Coakley

District Court, S.D. West Virginia

Allen v. Coakley

Trial Court Opinion

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

BECKLEY DIVISION

JOHN ALLEN,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-cv-06331

JOE COAKLEY,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On July 14, 2016, the Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed an Application Under

28 U.S.C. § 2241

for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody (Document 1). By Standing Order (Document 3) entered on July 15, 2016, 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 June 22, 2018, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 9) wherein it is recommended that the Petitioner’s Application Under

28 U.S.C. § 2241

for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody (Document 1) be denied as moot, and that this action be dismissed from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by July 9, 2018. 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, 1 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 Under

28 U.S.C. § 224

] for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody (Document 1) be DENIED AS MOOT, and that this action 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: July 16, 2018

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

Reference

Status
Unknown