Glowka v. Zeigler, No. 5:2013cv15324 - Document 16 (S.D.W. Va. 2014)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 15 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge and ORDERS that 1) the Petitioner's 2 Application Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody be DISMISSED with prejudice, with the exception that claims alleging inadequate medical care be DISMISSED without prejudice to allow the Petitioner an opportunity to file a civil rights action, if desired; and 2) this matter be REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 1/6/2014. (cc: Magistrate Judge Eifert; attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION ADAM M. GLOWKA, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-cv-15324 WARDEN ZEIGLER, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Court has reviewed the Petitioner=s June 24, 2013, Application Under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody (Document 2). By Standing Order (Document 7) entered on June 27, 2013, 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. On December 11, 2013, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 15) wherein it is recommended that: 1) 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 with prejudice, with the exception that claims alleging inadequate medical care be dismissed without prejudice to allow the Petitioner an opportunity to file a civil rights action, if desired; and 2) this Court remove this matter from the Court s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by December 30, 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: 1) the Petitioner s Application Under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody (Document 2) be DISMISSED with prejudice, with the exception that claims alleging inadequate medical care be DISMISSED without prejudice to allow the Petitioner an opportunity to file a civil rights action, if desired; and 2) 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 Eifert, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 January 6, 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.