Wilson v. Coakley

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 11 Proposed Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, and ORDERS that the Petitioner's 2 Application Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody be CONSTRUED as a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 and be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 1/30/2017. (cc: Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn; attys; any unrepresented party) (slr) [Transferred from West Virginia Southern on 1/31/2017.]

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

MICHAEL MAURICE WILSON,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-cv-14525

WARDEN COAKLEY,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On October 30, 2015, the Petitioner filed his Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
(Document 1) and his Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person
in State or Federal Custody (Document 2).
By Standing Order (Document 3) entered on October 30, 2015, this action was referred to the
Honorable R. Clarke VanDervort, 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.
Subsequently, by Order (Document 4) entered on January 6, 2016, the case was referred to the
Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings
of fact and recommendation for disposition.
On January 10, 2017, Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn submitted a Proposed Findings and
Recommendation (Document 11) wherein it is recommended that this Court construe the Petitioner’s
Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal
Custody (Document 2) as a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255,
and transfer it to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
1

Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by
January 27, 2017, and none were filed by either party. On January 20, 2017, the Petitioner filed a
letter-form response (Document 13) indicating his agreement with the Magistrate Judge’s
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 Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in
State or Federal Custody (Document 2) be CONSTRUED as a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or
Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and be TRANSFERRED to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge
Aboulhosn, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

2

January 30, 2017