Hilliard v. Zeigler
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 8 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge, ORDERS that the Petitioner's Applications for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 (Do cument 1 in Civil Action 5:12-1077 and Document 1 in Civil Action 5:13-14980) be DISMISSED, and that this matter be removed from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 9/4/2014. (cc: Magistrate Judge VanDervort; attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
RAYMOND STANLEY HILLIARD,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-cv-14980
(consolidated with 5:12-cv-01077)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Petitioner filed two Applications for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal
Custody under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241 (Document 1 in Civil Action 5:12-cv-01077; Document 1 in Civil
By Standing Order (Document 2 in Civil Action 5:12-cv-01077;
Document 3 in Civil Action 5:13-cv-14980), these actions were 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.
By Order of August 13, 2014 (Document 14 in Civil Action 5:12-cv-01077; Document 7 in
Civil Action 5:13-cv-14980), the Magistrate Judge consolidated the two civil actions and
designated Civil Action 5:13-cv-14980 as the lead case.
Additionally, on that date, the
Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 8 in Civil
Action 5:13-cv-14980) wherein it is recommended that this Court dismiss the Petitioner’s
Applications for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241
and remove this matter from the Court’s docket.
Neither party has timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and
Recommendation, which were due by September 2, 2014. 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 Applications for Writ of Habeas Corpus by
a Person in Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241 (Document 1 in Civil Action 5:12-cv-01077;
Document 1 in Civil Action 5:13-cv-14980) 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.
September 4, 2014
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?