Wright v. United States of America, No. 5:2011cv00494 - Document 147 (S.D.W. Va. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 146 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge, and ORDERS that the 135 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255), filed by Steffen V. Wright be DENIED; the Court ORDERS that this action be REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 6/27/2014. (cc: Magistrate Judge VanDervort; attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION STEFFEN V. WRIGHT, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11-cv-00494 (Criminal No. 5:03-cr-00052-02) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Court has reviewed the Petitioner=s July 21, 2011 Motion under 28 U.S.C. ' 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence By a Person in Federal Custody (Document 135), brought on the grounds, inter alia, that the District Court incorrectly calculated the applicable United States Sentencing Guideline range at his November 22, 2010 supervised release revocation hearing. By Standing Order (Document 138) entered on July 21, 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. On June 3, 2014, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 146) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny the Petitioner=s ' 2555 motion. Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by June 21, 2014. 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 Plaintiff s Motion under 28 U.S.C. ' 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Document 135) be DENIED. The Court further ORDERS that this action be REMOVED from the Court s docket. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge VanDervort, to counsel of record, and to any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 June 27, 2014
]]>
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.
