Barnett v. Young

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Adopting the 27 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; denying Petitioner's 1 Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody; grant ing the Respondent United States' 11 Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Transfer; dismissing with prejudice and removing from the Court's docket Petitioner's 1 Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Co rpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody; granting Petitioner's 18 Letter-Form Motion to Add a Claim or Relief; transferring Petitioner's claim, as set forth in the Petitioner's 13 Addendum to Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody and 14 supporting memorandum to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 and 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h); dismissing this action with prejudice and removing it from the court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 1/18/2019. (cc: Magistrate Judge Eifert; attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

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

ROBERT H. BARNETT,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-cv-00279

FRANCISCO QUINTANA, Warden,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On February 8, 2018, 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).
Also pending in the matter are the Respondent United States Motion to Dismiss or, in the
Alternative, to Transfer (Document 11) filed on June 6, 2018, and the Petitioner’s letter-form
motion to add a claim or relief (Document 18) filed on July 5, 2018.
By Standing Order (Document 4) entered on February 12, 2018, 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
December 18, 2018, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation
(Document 27) wherein it is recommended that:
1.

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 denied as to the claims
contained therein;
1

2.

The Respondent United States Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Transfer
(Document 11) be granted;

3.

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 with prejudice,
and removed from the Court’s docket;

4.

The Petitioner’s letter-form motion to add a claim or relief (Document 18) be
granted;

5.

The Petitioner’s claim, as set forth in the Petitioner’s Addendum to Application
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal
Custody (Document 13) and supporting memorandum (Document 14) be
transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1631 and 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h); and

6.

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 January 7, 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:
1.

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 DENIED as to the claims
contained therein;

2

2.

The Respondent United States Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Transfer
(Document 11) be GRANTED;

3.

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 with
prejudice, and REMOVED from the Court’s docket;

4.

The Petitioner’s letter-form motion to add a claim or relief (Document 18) be
GRANTED;

5.

The Petitioner’s claim, as set forth in the Petitioner’s Addendum to Application
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal
Custody (Document 13) and supporting memorandum (Document 14) be
TRANSFERRED to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 and 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h); and

6.

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:

3

January 18, 2019