Carlisle v. Shartle

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER the court CONFIRMS AND ACCEPTS the magistrate judge's 8 Proposed Findings and Recommendation; DENIES petitioner's 2 Motion for leave to file in forma pauperis; DENIES the 3 Motion for an order to show cause; DENIES petitioner's 1 section 2241 petition; and DISMISSES this matter from the court's active docket. Signed by Judge David A. Faber on 12/15/2009. (cc: petitioner; attys) (taq)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON DARIUS QUINARD CARLISLE, Petitioner, v. JOHN T. SHARTLE, Warden, FCI Elkton, Lisbon, OH, Respondent. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09-01003

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the court is petitioner's action for habeas corpus relief, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. By Standing

Order, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mary E. Stanley on September 16, 2009. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b), the Standing Order directs Magistrate Judge Stanley to submit proposed findings and recommendation concerning the disposition of this matter. Magistrate Judge Stanley submitted

her Proposed Findings and Recommendation ("PF & R") on November 25, 2009, recommending that this court dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction and as a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. No. 8 at 5.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties were allotted ten days, plus three mailing days, in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge Stanley's PF & R. Neither party filed objections to the magistrate judge's proposed findings, and the failure to file objections within the

appropriate time frame constitutes a waiver of the right to a de novo review by this court. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363

(4th Cir. 1989); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Having reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Stanley, the court (1) CONFIRMS AND ACCEPTS the magistrate judge's findings (Doc. No. 8); (2) DENIES petitioner's motion for leave to file in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2); (3) DENIES the motion for an order to show cause (Doc. No. 3); (4) DENIES petitioner's section 2241 petition (Doc. No. 1); and (5) DISMISSES this matter from the court's active docket. The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to petitioner and to all counsel of record. It is SO ORDERED this 15th day of December, 2009. ENTER: David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge

-2-