Yeager v. State of Texas, No. 2:2017cv01167 - Document 7 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER accepting and incorporating the 6 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge and ORDERS judgment consistent with the findings and recommendations; denying the 2 Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 f or Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody; denying as moot the 1 Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs; and dismissing this action from the docket of this Court. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 3/27/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)

Download PDF
Yeager v. State of Texas Doc. 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION ANGELA MARYELLA YEAGER, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-01167 STATE OF TEXAS, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 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(b)(1)(B). The Magistrate Judge submitted her Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendations [ECF No. 6] (“PF&R”) and recommended that the court DENY the petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody [ECF No. 2]. Neither party filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s PF&R. The failure to object to a magistrate judge’s report may be deemed a waiver on appeal of the substance of the report and the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983); Campbell v. United States D. Ct. N.D. Cal., 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974). The court has reviewed the Magistrate Dockets.Justia.com Judge’s PF&R and finds no clear error on the face of the record. Accordingly, the court ACCEPTS and INCORPORATES herein the PF&R [ECF No. 6] and ORDERS judgment consistent with the findings and recommendations. The court ORDERS that the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody [ECF No. 2] is DENIED, the Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs [ECF No. 1] is DENIED as moot, and this action is DISMISSED from the docket of this court. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 March 27, 2017

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.