Odom v. Young

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 12 Proposed Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and ORDERS that the Respondent's 11 Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED, the Petitioner's 1 Application Under 28 U.S.C. S ection 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody be DISMISSED, and that matter be removed from the Court' docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 2/20/2018. (cc-cert: USMJ Eifert; attys; any unrepresented party) (msa)

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

ROBERT ODOM,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-cv-8596

DAVE YOUNG,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On September 6, 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 January 9, 2018, the Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss Petition (Document 11).
By Standing Order (Document 3) entered on September 7, 2016, the matter 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
January 29, 2018, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation
(Document 12) wherein it is recommended that the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petition
(Document 11) be granted, 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 dismissed, and this matter be

1

removed from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and
Recommendation were due by February 15, 2018.1
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 Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petition (Document 11)
be GRANTED, 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 DISMISSED, 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
Eifert, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

1

February 20, 2018

The docket reflects that the Proposed Findings and Recommendation mailed to the Petitioner was returned as
undeliverable on February 5, 2018.

2