Holmburg v. Coakley

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: the Court Adopts and incorporates the 10 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge and Orders that the Petitioner's 1 Section 2241 Petition be DISMISSED and that this matter be Removed from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 3/31/2016. (cc: Mag. Judge Aboulhosn;attys; any unrepresented party) (cds)

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

ROBERT D. HOLMBURG, JR.,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-cv-05740

JOE COAKLEY,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On May 6, 2015, the Petitioner, acting pro se, filed his Petition 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 3) entered on May 6, 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 9) 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 7, 2016, Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn submitted a Proposed Findings and
Recommendation (Document 10) wherein it is recommended that this Court dismiss the
Petitioner’s 2241 Petition (Document 1) and remove this matter from the Court’s docket.

1

Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by March
24, 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 Section 2241 Petition (Document 1) 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 31, 2016