Lackard v. Coakley

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the 12 Proposed Findings and Recommendation and ORDERS that the Petitioner's 1 Application f or Writ of Habeas Corpus be DENIED, the Respondent's 7 MOTION to Dismiss be GRANTED, and this matter DISMISSED with prejudice, and this action be REMOVED from the docket of the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 03/02/2017. (cc: USMJ Eifert; attys; any unrepresented party) (msa)

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

JAMES O’BRIEN LACKARD,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-cv-00517

JOE COAKLEY,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On January 12, 2015, the Petitioner, acting pro se, filed his Application for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (Document 1) brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In his April 10, 2015 Response to
Order to Show Cause (Document 7), the Respondent moves the Court to dismiss the Petitioner’s
§ 2241 Application.
By Standing Order (Document 4) entered on January 22, 2015, this action was referred to
the Honorable Cheryl A. Eifert, 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
February 1, 2017, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation
(Document 12) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny the Petitioner’s Application for
Writ of Habeas Corpus (Document 1), grant the Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Document 7),
dismiss this matter with prejudice, and remove this action from the Court’s docket.

1

Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due
by February 21, 2017, and none were filed by either party. 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 for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(Document 1) be DENIED, the Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Document 7) be GRANTED,
this matter be DISMISSED with prejudice, and this action be REMOVED from the Court’s
docket.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge
Eifert, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

2

March 2, 2017