Harvey v. Zieglar

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the 14 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS that the Petitioner's 1 Application Unde r 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By A Person un State or Federal Custody be DISMISSED and that this matter be REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 5/19/2016. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (msa)

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

D’ANGELO HARVEY,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-cv-11327

JOEL ZIEGLER,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On May 15, 2013, the Petitioner, proceeding 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).
By Standing Order (Document 3) entered on May 20, 2013, this matter 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 12) 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 April 29, 2016, Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn submitted a Proposed Findings and
Recommendation (Document 14) wherein it is recommended that this Court dismiss the
Petitioner’s Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State

1

or Federal Custody (Document 1) and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. Objections to
the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by May 16, 2016.
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 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
Aboulhosn, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

2

May 19, 2016