Mallard v. Collins et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the 11 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS that: the Petitioner's 1 Application t o Proceed in Forma Pauperis be DENIED AS MOOT; the Petitioner's 2 and 3 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 1/28/2015. (cc: USMJ VanDervort; attys; any unrepresented party) (msa)

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

WILLARD MALLARD,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-cv-13094

M. COLLINS, et al.,
Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On March 25, 2014, the Petitioner filed an Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
(Document 1) and an Application Under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person
in State or Federal Custody (Documents 2 and 3).
By Standing Order (Document 6) entered on March 31, 2014, 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.
On January 6, 2015, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation
(Document 11) wherein it is recommended that this Court: deny as moot the Petitioner’s
Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; dismiss the Petitioner’s Application Under 28 U.S.C. '
2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody; and remove this matter
from the Court’s docket.

Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and

Recommendation were due by January 23, 2015.
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 in Forma

Pauperis (Document 1) be DENIED AS MOOT; the Petitioner’s Application Under 28 U.S.C. '
2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody (Documents 2 and 3) 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
VanDervort, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

2

January 28, 2015