Dent-El v. Young

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Adopting the 11 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; denying Petitioner's 1 Application Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State or Federal Custody; gran ting the Respondent's 9 Response to Order to Show Cause, moving for the dismissal of the Petitioner's Application; dismissing this action with prejudice and removing it from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 9/18/2018. (cc: Magistrate Judge Eifert; attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

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

RYAN DUANE DENT-EL,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-cv-09050

D. L. YOUNG, Warden,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On September 22, 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 3, 2017, the Respondent filed a Response to Order to Show Cause (Document 9)
moving for the dismissal of the Petitioner’s Application.
By Standing Order (Document 3) entered on September 23, 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 August 30, 2018, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and
Recommendation (Document 11) 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 be
denied, the Respondent’s Response to Order to Show Cause moving for the dismissal of the
Petitioner’s Application be granted, and that this action be dismissed with prejudice, and removed
1

from the Court’s docket.

Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and

Recommendation were due by September 17, 2018.
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 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 Response to Order to Show Cause (Document 9) moving for the dismissal of the
Petitioner’s Application be GRANTED, and that 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

September 18, 2018