Lucas v. Ferguson

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 5 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge, and ORDERS that the Petitioner's 4 Letter-Form Motion for Voluntary Dismissal be GRANTED, the Petitioner's 1 Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs be DENIED, the Petitioner's 2 Application Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State or Federal Custody be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and this matter be REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 8/4/2015. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

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

ANGEL MARIE LUCAS,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-cv-09061

JUDGE ALFRED FERGUSON, et al.,
Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On July 1, 2015, the Petitioner filed an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of
Fees or 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). On July 10, 2015, the Petitioner
filed a letter-form Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (Document 4).
By Standing Order (Document 3) entered on July 2, 2015, this action 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.
On July 14, 2015, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation
(Document 5) wherein it is recommended that this Court grant the Petitioner’s letter-form
Motion for Voluntary Dismissal, deny the Petitioner’s Application to Proceed Without
Prepayment of Fees or Costs, dismiss without prejudice the Petitioner’s Application Under 28
U.S.C. ' 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State or Federal Custody, and remove
this matter from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings
and Recommendation were due by July 31, 2015.
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 letter-form Motion for Voluntary
Dismissal (Document 4) be GRANTED, the Petitioner’s Application to Proceed Without
Prepayment of Fees or Costs (Document 1) be DENIED, 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 DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and 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
VanDervort, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

2

August 4, 2015