Jenkins v. Young

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: adopting the 14 Proposed Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge; denying the Petitioner's 1 Application Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus; granting the Respondent's 12 request for dismissal; dismissing this action with prejudice and removing it from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 10/3/2017. (cc: Magistrate Judge Eifert; attys; any unrepresented party) (btm)

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

NORMAN R. JENKINS,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-cv-04296

D. L. YOUNG, Warden,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On May 10, 2016, the Petitioner, proceeding 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). On
July 29, 2016, the Respondent filed the United States Response to Order to Show Cause
(Document 12) moving for dismissal of the Petitioner’s aforesaid Application.
By Standing Order (Document 5) entered on May 10, 2016, 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 11, 2017, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation
(Document 14) 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 1) be denied;
the Respondent’s request for dismissal (Document 12) be granted; and this action be dismissed
with prejudice and removed from the Court’s docket.
1

Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due
by September 28, 2017, and none were filed by either party. 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; the
Respondent’s request for dismissal (Document 12) be GRANTED; and 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.
ENTER:

2

October 3, 2017