Sahagun-Pelayo v. Young

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: adopting the 17 Proposed Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge; denying the Petitioner's 1 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241; denying as moot the Petitioner& #039;s 16 Motion and Request to the Court for Expedited Ruling; granting the Respondent's 10 Response to the Order to Show Cause; dismissing this action with prejudice and removing it from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 9/6/2017. (cc: Magistrate Judge Eifert; attys; any unrepresented party) (btm)

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

JUAN MANUEL SAHAGUN-PELAYO,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-cv-09875

D. L. YOUNG, Warden, FCI Beckley,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On October 19, 2016, the Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed his Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Document 1). Also pending are the Petitioner’s
motion for expedited ruling (Document 16) filed on July 17, 2017; and the Respondent’s Response
to the Order to Show Cause (Document 10) filed on January 6, 2017, seeking dismissal of the
Petitioner’s Petition.
By Standing Order (Document 3) entered on October 20, 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
August 11, 2017, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation
(Document 17) wherein it is recommended that: the Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be denied; the Petitioner’s motion for expedited ruling be
denied as moot; the Respondent’s Response to the Order to Show Cause seeking dismissal of the
1

Petitioner’s Petition be granted; and this action be dismissed with prejudice and removed from the
Court’s docket.
Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due
by August 28, 2017, and none were timely 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 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Document 1) be DENIED; the Petitioner’s motion for expedited
ruling (Document 16) be DENIED AS MOOT; the Respondent’s Response to the Order to Show
Cause (Document 10) seeking dismissal of the Petitioner’s Petition 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

September 6, 2017