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)

Download PDF
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?