Fields v. Samuets, No. 5:2013cv30584 - Document 9 (S.D.W. Va. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 7 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge, and ORDERS that the Petitioner's 1 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 be DISMISSED and that this matter be REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 6/3/2014. (cc: Magistrate Judge Eifert; attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION ANTHONY KEVIN FIELDS, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-cv-30584 CHARLES E. SAMUELS, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Court has reviewed the Petitioner=s December 2, 2013 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Document 1). By Standing Order (Document 4) entered on January 6, 2014, 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 May 16, 2014, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 7) wherein it is recommended that this Court dismiss the Petitioner s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and remove this matter from the Court s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by June 2, 2014.1 1 The docket reflects that the Proposed Findings and Recommendation mailed to the Petitioner was returned as undeliverable on May 22, 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 that the Petitioner s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Document 1) be DISMISSED and 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 Eifert, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 June 3, 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.
