Hambric v. Coakley

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Adopting the 5 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge, DENYING Petitioner's 2 Application Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody; dismis sing this matter from the Court's docket; denying as moot the 1 Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs filed by Terry Hambric. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 4/30/2018. (cc: Magistrate Judge Tinsley; attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

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

TERRY HAMBRIC,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-cv-04494

JOE COAKLEY,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On April 14, 2015, the Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed an application to proceed without
prepayment of fees and costs (Document 1) and an Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ
of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody (Document 2).
By Standing Order (Document 15) entered on April 15, 2015, this action was referred to
the Honorable Dwane L. Tinsley, 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
April 2, 2017, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation
(Document 5) wherein it is recommended 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 denied, and
that this matter be dismissed from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s
Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by April 19, 2018.1

The docket reflects that the Proposed Findings and Recommendation mailed to the Petitioner was
returned as undeliverable on April 12, 2018.
1
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 DENIED, and that
this matter be DISMISSED from the Court’s docket.
Further, it is ORDERED that the Petitioner’s application to proceed without prepayment
of fees and costs (Document 1) be DENIED AS MOOT.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge
Tinsley, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

2

April 30, 2018