Mayhew v. FCI Beckley
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the 11 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS that the Petitioner's 10 Motion to Dismiss Application Unde r 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 is GRANTED, Petitioner's 1 Section 2241 Application is DISMISSED without prejudice, and this matter is REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 08/22/2017. (cc: USMJ Aboulhosn; attys; any unrepresented party) (msa)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BECKLEY DIVISION
DAVID C. MAYHEW,
Petitioner,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-cv-02497
D. L. YOUNG, Warden, FCI Beckley,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On April 24, 2017, the Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a letter-form Application for
Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Document 1).
Subsequently, on June 21, 2017, the Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss Application Under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (Document 10). By Standing Order (Document 3) entered on April 25, 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 1, 2017, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and
Recommendation (Document 11) wherein it is recommended that this Court grant the Petitioner’s
Motion to Dismiss Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, dismiss the Petitioner’s Section 2241
Application without prejudice, and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. Objections to the
1
Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by August 18, 2017, 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 Motion to Dismiss Application Under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (Document 10) is GRANTED, the Petitioner’s Section 2241 Application
(Document 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice, and this matter is 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
August 22, 2017
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?