Lutfi v. Coakley

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 10 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by the Magistrate Judge, and ORDERS that the Petitioner's 2 and 4 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 3/22/2016. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

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

SALIH WASIM LUTFI,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-cv-02318

J. COAKLEY,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Petitioner, acting pro se, filed his Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of
Habeas Corpus by a Person in State or Federal Custody (Documents 2 & 4) in this matter.
By Standing Order (Document 5) entered on March 18, 2015, 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 8) 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 March 3, 2016, Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn submitted a Proposed Findings and
Recommendation (Document 10) 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
or Federal Custody (Documents 2 & 4) and remove this matter from the Court’s docket.
1

Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by March
21, 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 (Documents 2 & 4) 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

March 22, 2016