Rivera-Guerra v. Coakley
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS that Petitioner's 1 Application Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 for Writ of Habeas By a Person in State or Federal Custody be DENIED, this action be DISMISSED with prejudice and REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 10/18/2016. (cc: USMJ Eifert; attys; any unrepresented party) (msa)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
JOSE J. RIVERA-GUERRA,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-cv-05184
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
One April 24, 2015, the Petitioner=s, 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 (Document 1).
By Standing Order (Document 4) entered on April 27, 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
September 13, 2016, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation
(Document 13) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny the Petitioner’s Application,
dismiss the action with prejudice, and remove the matter from the Court’s docket. Objections to
the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by September 30,
The docket reflects that the Proposed Findings and Recommendation mailed to the Petitioner was returned as
undeliverable on September 23, 2016, and re-mailed to a different address on that date. As of October 17, 2016, no
objections had been filed.
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 1) be DENIED, this action
be DISMISSED with prejudice and 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.
October 18, 2016
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?