Worsley v. Ziegler

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 10 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge, and ORDERS that Petitioner's 5 Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs be DENIED, the Petitioner's 1 and 2 Application Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody be DISMISSED, and this matter be REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 3/16/2016. (cc: Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn; attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

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

GREGORY DEVON WORSLEY,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-cv-08096

JOEL ZIEGLER, Warden,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On April 16, 2013, the Petitioner, acting pro se, filed his Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody (Document 1) and his
Memorandum of Law (Document 2) in support thereof. Thereafter, on April 22, 2013, the Petitioner
filed his Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 5).
By Standing Order (Document 4) entered on April 19, 2013, 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.
Subsequently, by Order (Document 8) entered on January 6, 2016, the case was referred to the
Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings
of fact and recommendation for disposition.
On February 24, 2016, Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn, submitted a Proposed Findings and
Recommendation (Document 10) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny the Petitioner’s
Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 5), dismiss the Petitioner’s
1

Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal
Custody (Documents 1 & 2), and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. Objections to the
Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by March 14, 2016.1
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 Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document 5) be
DENIED, the Petitioner’s Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a
Person in State or Federal Custody (Documents 1 & 2) be DISMISSED, and 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
Aboulhosn, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

1

March 16, 2016

The docket reflects that the Proposed Findings and Recommendation mailed to the Petitioner was returned as
undeliverable on March 14, 2016.

2