Mauldin v. Young

Filing 58

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: ADOPTING the 56 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; DENYING Petitioner's two Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 (Document 3 in Case No. 5:17-cv-02312 & Docu ment 1 in Case No. 5:17-cv-02626); DENYING AS MOOT Petitioner's 46 Motion to Issue an Injunction Against the Warden and Adm/Staff to Stop Withholding Legal Mail; and DISMISSING these consolidated actions from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 2/7/2019. (cc: USMJ Tinsley; counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (msa)

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

ALFRED LEE MAULDIN,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-cv-02312
(Consolidated with Civil Action No. 5:17-cv-02626)

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Petitioner, proceeding pro-se, has filed two Petitions for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Document 3 in Case No. 5:17-cv-02312 & Document 1 in Case No. 5:17cv-02626). The Petitioner has also filed a Motion to Issue an Injunction Against the Warden and
Adm/Staff to Stop Withholding Legal Mail (Document 46 in Case No. 5:17-cv-2312).
These consolidated actions were referred to the Honorable Dwane L. Tinsley, 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 18, 2019, the Magistrate Judge submitted
a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 56) wherein it is recommended that the
Petitioner’s two Petitions for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be denied; the
Petitioner’s Motion to Issue an Injunction Against the Warden and Adm/Staff to Stop Withholding
Legal Mail be denied as moot; and the consolidated actions be dismissed from the Court’s docket.

1

Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due
by February 4, 2019, 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 two Petitions for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Document 3 in Case No. 5:17-cv-02312 & Document 1 in Case No. 5:17cv-02626) be DENIED; the Petitioner’s Motion to Issue an Injunction Against the Warden and
Adm/Staff to Stop Withholding Legal Mail (Document 46 in Case No. 5:17-cv-2312) be DENIED
AS MOOT; and these consolidated actions be DISMISSED from the Court’s docket.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge
Tinsley, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

2

February 7, 2019