Washington v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources et al, No. 2:2016cv10189 - Document 6 (S.D.W. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 5 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; DISMISSES the 2 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus; and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's 1 Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs; the Court further dismisses this matter and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this action from the docket of the Court. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 7/24/2018. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION JOSEPHINE LOUELLA WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-10189 WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, (ECF No. 2), and Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (“IFP Application”), (ECF No. 1). By Standing Order filed in this case on October 28, 2016, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition (“PF&R”). (ECF No. 4.) Magistrate Judge Tinsley entered his PF&R on July 2, 2018, recommending that the Court dismiss the petition and deny as moot Plaintiff’s IFP Application. (ECF No. 5.) 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 a party’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). Objections to the PF&R in this case were due on July 19, 2018. To date, no objections have been filed. The Court therefore ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 5), DISMISSES the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, (ECF No. 2), and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s IFP Application, (ECF No. 1). The Court further dismisses this matter and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this action from the docket of the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: July 24, 2018
]]>
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.
