Mosley v. Bureau of Prisons
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS : The Court Adopts and Incorporates the 4 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge and ORDERS that Petitioner's 1 Section 2241 Petition be Dismissed; that this matter be Removed from the docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 6/5/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (cds)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BECKLEY DIVISION
PIERRE MOSLEY,
Petitioner,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-cv-00339
BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s Writ for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Seeking Eligibility for the “Early Release Benefit” Due Upon Completion of the Residential Drug
Abuse Program (Document 1). This action was referred to the Honorable R. Clarke VanDervort,
United States Magistrate Judge, for submission to this Court of proposed findings of fact and
recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (Document 2). On May 15,
2012, the Magistrate Judge submitted Proposed Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”)
(Document 4), wherein it is recommended that this Court dismiss this action as moot, in light of the
Petitioner’s release from custody.
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). In addition, this Court need not conduct
a de novo review when a party “makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the Court
to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson,
687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir.1982). Objections to the PF&R in this case were due on June 1, 2012. To
date, no party has filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and
Recommendation. As noted in the PF&R, Petitioner appears to have been released from custody
on December 6, 2010. Inasmuch as Petitioner did not provide the Clerk’s Office with a forwarding
address, the PF&R sent to him on May 15, 2012, was returned as undeliverable. (Document 5).
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS
that Petitioner’s Section 2241 Petition (Document 1) be DISMISSED. The Court further ORDERS
that this matter be removed from its docket.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to any
unrepresented party.
ENTER:
2
June 5, 2012
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?