Hopkins v. Ziegler, No. 5:2010cv01356 - Document 12 (S.D.W. Va. 2013)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 11 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge, and ORDERS that the Petitioner's 1 Application Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Fe deral Custody and 6 Motion to Amend Argument in Support of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 be DISMISSED and that this matter be REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 11/19/2013. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION ROLAND JEVON HOPKINS, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:10-cv-01356 JOEL ZIEGLER, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Court has reviewed the Petitioner=s December 7, 2010 Application Under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody (Document 1) and March 15, 2011 Motion to Amend Argument in Support of Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Motion (Document 6). By Standing Order (Document 3) entered on December 7, 2010, this action was referred to the Honorable R. Clarke VanDervort, 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 31, 2013, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 11) wherein it is recommended that this Court dismiss the Petitioner s Application (Documents 1 & 6) and remove this matter from the Court s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by November 18, 2013. 1 Neither party has timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation. 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 Application Under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody (Document 1) and Motion to Amend Argument in Support of Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Motion (Document 6) be DISMISSED, and that this matter be REMOVED from the Court s docket. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge VanDervort, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 November 19, 2013

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.