Boatswain v. Ziegler
Filing
23
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 21 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge, and ORDERS that the Petitioner's 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 that this matter be REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 9/12/2016. (cc: Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn; attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BECKLEY DIVISION
FRANK BOATSWAIN,
Petitioner,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-cv-21468
JOEL ZIEGLER,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Court has reviewed the Petitioner=s Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of
Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody (Document 2) filed on August 5, 2013.
By Standing Order (Document 3) entered on August 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 19) 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 August 15, 2016, Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn submitted a Proposed Findings and
Recommendation (Document 21) wherein it is recommended that this Court dismiss the
1
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 September 1, 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 Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ
of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody (Document 2) 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:
1
September 12, 2016
The docket reflects that the Proposed Findings and Recommendation mailed to the Petitioner was returned as
undeliverable on September 2, 2016.
2
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?