Keeney v. Ballard

Filing 16

ORDER accepting and incorporating the 15 Proposed Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; denying the petitioner's 10 Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs; granting the petitioner's 14 Letter -Form Motion for Voluntary Dismissal; dismissing the petitioner's 1 , 2 Letter-Form Petitions under 29 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State Custody; and directing this action to be removed from the docket. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 7/13/2015. (cc: petitioner; pro se; counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)

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

JOHN E. KEENEY, JR.,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-03897

DAVID BALLARD,
Respondent.

ORDER
The action was referred to the Honorable R. Clarke VanDervort, United States Magistrate
Judge, for submission to this court of proposed findings and recommendation for disposition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On May 19, 2015, the Magistrate Judge submitted findings
and recommended that the court deny the petitioner’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment
of Fees or Costs [Docket 10], grant the petitioner’s Letter-Form Motion for Voluntary Dismissal
[Docket 14], dismiss the petitioner’s Letter-Form Petitions Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of
Habeas Corpus By a Person in State Custody [Dockets 1 & 2], and remove the matter from the
court’s docket. (See Proposed Findings and Recommendation [Docket 15], at 3-4). Neither party
has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations.
A district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C). This court is not, however, 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).
As the parties have not filed objections in this case, the court accepts and incorporates
herein the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge and orders judgment consistent
with the findings and recommendations. The court DENIES the petitioner’s Application to
Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs [Docket 10], GRANTS the petitioner’s Letter-Form
Motion for Voluntary Dismissal [Docket 14], DISMISSES the petitioner’s Letter-Form Petitions
under 29 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State Custody [Dockets 1 &
2], and DIRECTS this action to be removed from the docket.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.
ENTER:

2

July 13, 2015