Cassady v. Ziegler, No. 5:2012cv00078 - Document 11 (S.D.W. Va. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 8 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 Federal Custody be DISMISSED and that this matter be REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 11/12/2014. (cc: Magistrate Judge VanDervort; attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cassady v. Ziegler Doc. 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION REGINALD JEROME CASSADY, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-cv-00078 JOEL ZIEGLER, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On January 18, 2012, the Petitioner filed an Application Under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody (Document 1). By Standing Order (Document 4) entered on January 18, 2012, 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 21, 2014, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 8) wherein it is recommended that this Court dismiss the Petitioner’s Application Under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by November 7, 2014. Neither party has timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation.1 1 The Bureau of Prisons’ Inmate Locator indicates that the Petitioner died on August 5, 2014. 1 Dockets.Justia.com The Court is not required to review, under a de n T d u novo or any other standa the factu or ard, ual legal con nclusions of the magistrat judge as to those porti t te o ions of the fi indings or recommendati to ion which no objections are address o sed. Thoma v. Arn, 47 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) Failure to file as 74 , ). timely ob bjections con nstitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Pe w w etitioner=s rig to appea this ght al Court=s Order. 28 U.S.C. ' 636( O U (b)(1); see al Snyder v. Ridenour, 8 F.2d 136 1366 (4th Cir. lso . 889 63, h 1989); United States v. Schronce 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th C 1984). U e, 9 Cir. Accordingly, the Cour ADOPT and in A rt TS ncorporates herein the findings and e recomme endation of the Magistrate Judge as conta f ained in th Proposed Findings and he d Recomme endation and ORDERS that the Peti d itioner’s App plication Und 28 U.S.C ' 2241 for Writ der C. r of Habea Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Cust as y i F tody (Docum ment 1) be D DISMISSED and D that this matter be RE m EMOVED from the Cou f urt’s docket. . The Court DI T IRECTS the Clerk to se a certifie copy of th Order to Magistrate J e end ed his Judge VanDerv vort, counsel of record, and any unre l a epresented pa arty. ENTER: 2 ber Novemb 12, 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.
