Ripley v. United States of America et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the 5 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS that the Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 be DISMISSED and that this matter be REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 10/29/2014. (cc: USMJ VanDervort; attys; any unrepresented party) (msa)

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

DAMON M. RIPLEY,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11-cv-01012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
and WARDEN ZIEGLER,
Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On December 27, 2011, the Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. ' 2241 (Document 1).
By Standing Order (Document 3) entered on December 27, 2011, 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.

On October 8, 2014, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and

Recommendation (Document 5) wherein it is recommended that this Court dismiss the Petitioner’s
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2241 and remove this matter from the
Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation
were due by October 27, 2014.1

1

The docket reflects that the Proposed Findings and Recommendation mailed to the Petitioner
was returned as undeliverable on October 14, 2014.
1

Neither party has timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and
Recommendation. 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).
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 the Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. ' 2241 (Document 1) be DISMISSED and that this matter be REMOVED from the
Court’s docket.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge
VanDervort, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

2

October 29, 2014