Blake v. United States of America
Filing
49
ORDER adopting the 48 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; denying the 35 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence. Grants the 44 Motion to Dismiss; dismisses this action with prejudice and removes this matter from the docket. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 8/15/2019. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party, Mag. Judge) (lca)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
EDWARD WILLIAM BLAKE, JR.,
Petitioner,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-04595
(Criminal No. 2:17-cr-00107)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
ORDER
This action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert
for submission to this court of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for
disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On July 22, 2019, Magistrate Judge
Eifert submitted her Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendation [ECF No. 48]
(“PF&R”), recommending the court deny the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct
Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [ECF No. 35];
grant the Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 44]; dismiss this action with prejudice; and
remove this matter from the docket. To date, no objections to Magistrate Judge
Eifert’s PF&R have been filed, and the time period for the filing of objections has
passed.
Accordingly, the court ADOPTS and INCORPORATES herein the PF&R. For
the reasons stated, the court DENIES the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct
Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [ECF No. 35];
GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 44]; DISMISSES this action with prejudice;
and removes this matter from the docket.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record,
any unrepresented party, and the Magistrate Judge.
ENTER:
2
August 15, 2019
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?