Qadri v. Young

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: ADOPTING the 19 Proposed Findings and Recommendation; GRANTING Respondent's 17 Motion to Dismiss Petition and 18 Amended Motion to Dismiss Petition; DENYING AS MOOT Petitioner's 1 Petition for a Wri t of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241, 12 Petitioner's Motion for Immediate Ruling and Petitioner's 15 Motion for Status Report and Ruling; DISMISSING this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 11/2/2018. (cc: USMJ Tinsley; attys; any unrepresented party) (msa)

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

SYED QADRI,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-cv-00002

D. L. YOUNG, Warden,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On January 2, 2018, the Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed his Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Document 1). Also pending in the matter are the
Petitioner’s Motion for Immediate Ruling (Document 12); the Petitioner’s Motion for Status Report
and Ruling (Document 15); the Petitioner’s Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction
(Document 16); the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petition (Document 17); and the
Respondent’s Amended Motion to Dismiss Petition (Document 18).
By Standing Order (Document 3) entered on January 3, 2018, this action was 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
October 12, 2018, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation
(Document 19) wherein it is recommended: 1) that the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petition
(Document 17) and Amended Motion to Dismiss Petition (Document 18) be granted; 2) that the
1

Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Document 1), the
Petitioner’s Motion for Immediate Ruling (Document 12), the Petitioner’s Motion for Status Report
and Ruling (Document 15), and the Petitioner’s Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction
(Document 16) be denied as moot; and 3) that this matter be dismissed from the Court’s docket.
Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due
by October 29, 2018,1 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: 1) that the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petition (Document
17) and Amended Motion to Dismiss Petition (Document 18) be GRANTED; 2) that the
Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Document 1), the
Petitioner’s Motion for Immediate Ruling (Document 12), the Petitioner’s Motion for Status Report
and Ruling (Document 15), and the Petitioner’s Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction
(Document 16) be DENIED AS MOOT; and 3) that this matter be DISMISSED from the Court’s
docket.

1

The docket reflects that the Proposed Findings and Recommendation mailed to the Petitioner was returned as
undeliverable on October 22, 2018.

2

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:

3

November 2, 2018