Becker v. Hudson, et al.

Filing 12

ORDER adopting and incorporating the 4 Proposed Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; dismissing petitioner's 2 2254 petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; denying as moot 1 Application to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Jan F. Becker. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 9/2/2009. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party, Magistrate Judge Stanley) (tmr) (Modified text to conform to filed document on 9/3/2009) (skh).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION JAN F. BECKER, Petitioner, v. WARDEN HUDSON, et al., Respondent. ORDER Pending before the court is the petitioner's Petition for a Writ of habeas Corpus [Docket 2] and Application to proceed in forma pauperis [Docket 1]. This action was referred to the Honorable Mary E. Stanley, 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(b)(1)(B). The Magistrate Judge has submitted findings of fact and recommended that the court dismiss this matter for lack of jurisdiction and because petitioner's petition is frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted [Docket 4]. The Magistrate Judge also recommended that the court deny as moot the petitioner's Application to proceed in forma pauperis. The petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal on October 22, 2007 [Docket 5]. In it, he states that "petitioner sees no reason to file objections in a conspiring court." The Notice further states that this court does not lack jurisdiction because "[p]etitioner is a United States [c]itizen with a [c]onstitutional [r]ight to habeas corpus" and that "[no] Ohio Federal Court can or will hear the case." Because the petitioner is acting pro se, the court deems these to be objections to the CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07-cv-00578

Magistrate Judge's. The objections, however, are meritless. No other party has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation. Accordingly, the court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and DISMISSES the petitioner's § 2254 petition [Docket 2] for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court further DENIES the petitioner's Application to Proceed in forma pauperis [Docket 1] as moot. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge Stanley, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: September 2, 2009

-2-