Walters v. Ziegler, No. 5:2011cv00226 - Document 13 (S.D.W. Va. 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: adopting the 9 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; ordering that Petitioner's 1 and 5 Application Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State or Federal Custody be DISMISSED; ordering that this matter be removed from the docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 4/16/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION CHASE MICHAEL WALTERS, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11-cv-00226 JOEL ZIEGLER, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION The Court has reviewed Petitioner s Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 For Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody (Documents 1 & 5). By Order (Document 4) entered on April 6, 2011, 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(b)(1)(B). On March 9, 2012, the Magistrate Judge submitted Proposed Findings and Recommendation ( PF&R ) (Document 9), wherein it is recommended that this Court dismiss Petitioner s Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody (Documents 1 & 5) and remove this matter from the Court s docket. 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). In addition, this Court need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the Court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir.1982). Originally, objections to the PF&R were due no later than March 26, 2012. However, by Order (Document 12) entered on March 16, 2012, the Court granted in part Petitioner s Request for an Extension of time to Reply to Magistrate s Proposed Findings and Recommendations (Document 11). Petitioner was given an extension of fifteen (15) days to file objections to the PF&R, thereby making his objections due no later than April 10, 2012. To date, no party has filed any objections. 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 Petitioner s Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 For Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody (Documents 1 & 5) be DISMISSED. Further, the Court ORDERS that this matter be removed from the docket. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: April 16, 2012 2

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.