Smith v. Dismas Charities et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 15 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge, denying as moot the 1 LETTER-FORM PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, and Ground Two of the Petition re: 5 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS COR PUS, denying without prejudice Grounds One, Three, and Four of the Petition, dismissing this case and directing the Clerk to remove this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 5/12/2016. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (mmw)

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

JAMES SMITH,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-10749

DISMAS CHARITIES, et al.,
Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s letter-form petition for a writ of habeas corpus
(the “Letter-Form Petition”),1 (ECF No. 1), and Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”), (ECF No. 5). By Standing Order filed in this case on July
16, 2015, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for total
pretrial management and submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for
disposition. (ECF No. 2.) On April 8, 2016, Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed amended proposed
findings of fact and recommendations for disposition (“PF&R”), in which he recommends that the
Court deny as moot the Letter-Form Petition and Ground Two of the Petition, deny without
prejudice Grounds One, Three, and Four of the Petition, and dismiss this case. (ECF No. 15 at 9.)
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

1

Petitioner styled the Letter-Form Petition as a “motion for relief of [i]llegal confinement.” (ECF No. 1.)

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).
Objections to the PF&R in this case were due by April 25, 2016. (See ECF No. 15 at 9.)
To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 15), DENIES AS MOOT the
Letter-Form Petition, (ECF No. 1), and Ground Two of the Petition, (see ECF No. 5 at 7), DENIES
WITHOUT PREJUDICE Grounds One, Three, and Four of the Petition, (see id. at 6‒8),
DISMISSES this case, and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this matter from the Court’s docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to
counsel of record and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

May 12, 2016