Farris v. Dismas Charities et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: the Court Adopts the 8 Proposed Findings and Recommendations, Denies as Moot the 1 Letter-Form Petition, and Ground One of the 5 Petition, DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Grounds Two, Three, and Four of the Petition, DISMISSES this case, and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this matter from the Courts docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 4/28/2016. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (bdr)

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

THOMAS FARRIS,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-10753

DISMAS CHARITIES, et al.,
Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Motion by a Federal Prisoner for Habeas Relief,
which the Clerk interpreted as a letter-form Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (the “Letter-Form
Petition”), (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 Cheryl A. Eifert for total pretrial
management and submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition.
(ECF No. 2.) By order subsequently filed in this case on July 20, 2015, the referral in this matter
was transferred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley. (ECF No. 4.) On March 18,
2016, Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed 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 One of the Petition, deny without prejudice Grounds Two, Three, and Four
of the Petition, and dismiss this case. (ECF No. 8 at 7.)

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
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 4, 2016. (See ECF No. 8 at 7‒8.)
To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 8), DENIES AS MOOT the
Letter-Form Petition, (ECF No. 1), and Ground One of the Petition, (see ECF No. 5 at 6‒7),
DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Grounds Two, Three, and Four of the Petition, (see id. at 7‒
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 Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.
ENTER:

April 28, 2016