Lewis v. Nelson, No. 1:2008cv00307 - Document 10 (S.D.W. Va. 2009)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER CONFIRMING AND ACCEPTING 7 the PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION of Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort; DISMISSING 1 the 2241 PETITION; and DIRECTING the Clerk to remove this action from the court's active docket. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 4/6/2009. (cc: Petitioner, Pro Se and counsel of record) (arb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD THERESA M. LEWIS, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:08-00307 AMBER NELSON, Warden, FPC Alderson, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the court is petitioner s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 1.) (Doc. No. By Standing Order entered August 1, 2006, and filed in this case on May 13, 2008, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the Standing Order directs Magistrate Judge VanDervort to submit proposed findings and recommendation concerning the disposition of this matter. Magistrate Judge VanDervort submitted his Proposed Findings and Recommendation ( PF & R ) on March 4, 2009, recommending that this court dismiss the Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and remove this matter from the court s active docket. (Doc. No. 7.) In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties were allotted ten days, plus three mailing days, in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge VanDervort s PF & R. Under § 636(b), the failure of any party to file objections within the appropriate time frame constitutes a waiver of that party s right to a de novo review by this court. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Neither party has filed objections to the PF & R, and the time period for doing so has now elapsed.* Having reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge VanDervort, the court hereby (1) CONFIRMS AND ACCEPTS the findings and conclusions contained therein (Doc. No. 7); (2) DISMISSES the Petition (Doc. No. 1); and (3) DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this action from the court s active docket. The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to petitioner, pro se, and to all counsel of record. It is SO ORDERED this 6th day of April, 2009. ENTER: David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge * It appears that petitioner has failed to inform the court of her current address, as required by Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.5, and that she did not receive the copy of the PF & R that was sent to her. (See Doc. No. 9.) In the event petitioner wishes to file objections to the PF & R at a future date, she should move the court to reopen her case. -2-

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.