Izac v. United States
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: adopting the 4 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; GRANTING the 3 Motion to Remove 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 filed by Charles Izac ; DISMISSING without prejudice Petitioner's 1 Motion Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241; REMOVING this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 6/14/2012. (cc: Magistrate Judge VanDervort; attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BECKLEY DIVISION
CHARLES IZAC,
Petitioner,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-cv-00613
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed the Petitioner’s March 1, 2012 Motion Under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241 for
a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a person in state or federal custody (Document 1), wherein Petitioner
asserts that he is “actually innocent” of the Armed Career Offender Enhancement applied in his
one hundred eighty month term of imprisonment.
By Standing Order (Document 2) entered on March 1, 2012, 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
May 21, 2012, the Magistrate Judge submitted Proposed Findings and Recommendation
(Document 4) wherein it is recommended that this Court grant Petitioner’s May 16, 2012 Motion
to Remove 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Document 3), dismiss Petitioner’s Section 2241 Application without
prejudice, and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. A review of Petitioner’s motion to
remove reveals that he moves, without explanation, “to strike from the Docket motion filed under
28 U.S.C. [§] 2241 arguing Illegal Restraint pursuant to the Actual Innocence Clause.” (Document
3 at 1.)
1
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 his PF&R, Magistrate Judge
VanDervort advised the parties that any objections to the PF&R were due within seventeen (17)
days of the filing of the proposed findings and recommendation. Consequently, any objections to
the PF&R were due on June 7, 2012. To date, no party has filed any objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation.
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 Motion to Remove 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(Document 3) be GRANTED, Petitioner’s Motion Under 28 U.S.C.§ 2241 (Document 1) be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 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
June 14, 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?