Harris v. Masters
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: the Court ADOPTS 5 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Tinsley, DISMISSES this matter without prejudice and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the court's docket. Signed by Judge David A. Faber on 6/11/2014. (cc: Petitioner, pro se) (mjp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
CHRISTOPHER L. HARRIS,
Petitioner,
v.
Civil Action No: 1:14-12662
BART MASTERS, Warden
FCI McDowell
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By Standing Order, this matter was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of
findings and recommendations regarding disposition, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
Magistrate Judge Tinsley submitted to
the court his Proposed Findings and Recommendation on May 20,
2014, in which he recommended that the district court dismiss
this matter without prejudice because the issues raised in the
petitioner’s section 2241 petition are not appropriately raised
in a section 2241 habeas corpus proceeding, and that the same
issues may be addressed in the petitioner’s separate Bivens
action (Case No. 1:14-cv-15925).
Doc. No. 5.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),
petitioner was allotted fourteen days, plus three mailing days,
in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge Tinsley’s
Findings and Recommendation.
The failure to file such
1
objections constitutes a waiver of the right to a de novo review
by this court.
Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir.
1989).
Petitioner failed to file any objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s Findings and Recommendation within the seventeen-day
period.
Having reviewed the Findings and Recommendation filed
by Magistrate Judge Tinsley, the court adopts the findings and
recommendation contained therein.
The court FINDS that the issues raised in petitioner’s
section 2241 habeas corpus petition are not appropriately raised
in a section 2241 petition, and that the same issues may be
addressed in the petitioner’s separate Bivens action (Case No.
1:14-cv-15925).
As such, the court hereby DISMISSES this matter
without prejudice and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from
the court’s docket.
The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order to petitioner, pro se.
It is SO ORDERED this 11th day of June, 2014.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?