Woodson v. Mirandy
Filing
36
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 35 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; dismissing without prejudice the 2 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 8/7/2017. (cc: plaintiff; all counsel of record; Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn) (mks)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON
WILLIAM M. WOODSON,
Petitioner,
v.
Civil Action No. 2:15-16254
PATRICK MIRANDY, Warden,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The court having received the Proposed Findings and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn,
filed on July 17, 2017, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B); and having reviewed the record in this proceeding; and
there being no objections filed by any party to the proposed findings
and recommendation; and it appearing proper so to do, it is ORDERED
that the findings and conclusions made in the proposed findings and
recommendation of the magistrate judge relating to the dismissal of
this action be, and they hereby are, adopted by the court.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that the petitioner’s complaint
be, and it hereby is, dismissed without prejudice.
02/22/2016
Scheduling conference at 4:30 p.m. at the Robert C.
Byrd United States Courthouse in Charleston, before
the undersigned, unless canceled. Lead counsel
directed to appear.
02/29/2016
Entry of scheduling order.
03/08/2016
Last is to serve F.R. Civ. copies of disclosures.
The Clerk day directed to forward P 26(a)(1) this written
opinion and The Clerk plaintiff, all to transmitrecordOrder and
order to is requested counsel of this and the United
Notice to all counsel of record and to any unrepresented
States Magistrate Judge.
parties.
DATED: August 7, 2017
DATED: January 5, 2016
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?