Cook v. Young

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: adopting the 8 Proposed Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge; dismissing the Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and removing this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 9/14/2017. (cc: Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn; attys; any unrepresented party) (btm)

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

ERNEST ELI COOK,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-cv-00802

D. L. YOUNG, Warden,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On December 12, 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).
By Standing Order (Document 6) entered on January 24, 2017, this action 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 August 2, 2017, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and
Recommendation (Document 8) 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 dismissed,
and this matter be removed from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s
Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by August 21, 20171.

The docket reflects that the Proposed Findings and Recommendation mailed to the Petitioner was
returned as undeliverable on August 28, 2017, and re-mailed to a different address on that date.
As of September 14, 2017, no objections had been filed.
1
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 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
Aboulhosn, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

2

September 14, 2017