Fields v. Coakley et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the 7 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, 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 09/12/2016. (cc: USMJ Aboulhosn; attys; any unrepresented party) (msa)

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

ANTHONY KEVIN FIELDS,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-cv-09187

JOSEPH COAKLEY and
CHARLES E. SAMUELS, JR.,
Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On July 2, 2015, the Petitioner, acting pro se, filed his Complaint (Document 1) in this matter.
By Standing Order (Document 2) entered that same date, 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.
By Order (Document 3) entered on July 7, 2015, Magistrate Judge VanDervort ordered that
the Petitioner’s Complaint be construed as a Petition filed pursuant to 28 US.C. § 2241. Said Order
further directed the Petitioner to amend his Petition and to either pay a $5.00 filing fee or submit the
appropriate Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. Therein, the Petitioner was advised that his
failure to comply with the Order would result in a recommendation of dismissal of his action.
Subsequently, by Order (Document 6) entered on January 6, 2016, the case was referred to
the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, 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
1

August 16, 2016, Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation
(Document 7). Therein, the Magistrate Judge noted the Petitioner’s failure to the comply with the
Court’s July 7, 2015 Order (Document 3) and recommended that this Court dismiss the Petitioner’s
§ 2241 Petition and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s
Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by September 2, 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 § 2241 Petition 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

September 12, 2016