Davis v. Ziegler, No. 5:2013cv24876 - Document 15 (S.D.W. Va. 2014)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 14 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge, and ORDERS as follows: The 13 Motion to Dismiss filed by Joel Ziegler is GRANTED; the Petitioner's 1 Section 2241 Applicatio n is DENIED AS MOOT; the 5 Motion for Expedited Service filed by Roy Steve Davis is DENIED; the 9 Motion for Consideration filed by Roy Steve Davis is DENIED; and the 12 Motion for Reconsideration filed by Roy Steve Davis is DENIED; the Court ORDERS that this matter be REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 7/1/2014. (cc: Magistrate Judge Tinsley; attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION ROY STEVE DAVIS, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-cv-24876 JOEL ZIEGLER, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this matter including the Petitioner=s October 9, 2013 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 October 16, 2013, this action was referred to the Honorable Dwane L. Tinsley, 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 12, 2014, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 14) wherein it is recommended that this Court grant the Respondent s Motion to Dismiss (Document 13), deny as moot the Petitioner s § 2241 Application (Document 1), and deny the Petitioner s remaining pending motions (Documents 5, 9 & 12). Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by June 30, 2014. 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 as follows: 1) The Respondent s Motion to Dismiss (Document 13) is GRANTED; 2) The Petitioner s § 2241 Application (Document 1) is DENIED AS MOOT; 3) The Petitioner s Motion for Expedited Service (Document 5) is DENIED; 4) The Petitioner s Motion for Consideration (Document 9) is DENIED; and 5) The Petitioner s Motion for Reconsideration (Document 12) is DENIED. The Court further ORDERS 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 Tinsley, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 July 1, 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.