Whittenberg v. Ziegler

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 11 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge, and ORDERS that the Petitioner's 1 Application Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody be DISMISSED and that this matter be REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 5/19/2015. (cc: Magistrate Judge VanDervort; attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

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

TIMOTHY WHITTENBERG,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-cv-01430

JOEL ZIEGLER,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On May 7, 2012, the Petitioner filed an Application Under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241 for Writ of
Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody (Document 1). By Standing Order
(Document 3) entered on May 7, 2012, the 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 April 28, 2015, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and
Recommendation (Document 11) wherein it is recommended that this Court dismiss the
Petitioner’s 2241 Application and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. Objections to the
Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by May 15, 2015.
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
1

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 Application Under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241 for
Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody (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

May 19, 2015