Dickerson v. Nelson, No. 3:2009cv00933 - Document 13 (S.D.W. Va. 2011)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. The Court accepts and incorporates the 12 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge and Orders that movant's Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State of (sic) Federal Custody be denied and this action be dismissed, with prejudice, and removed from the docket of this Court. Signed by Judge Robert C. Chambers on 8/9/2011. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (dcm) Modified text on 8/9/2011. (jkk)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA HUNTINGTON DIVISION JUANITA JEAN DICKERSON, Movant, v. Civil Action No. 3:09-0933 (Criminal Action No. 3:04-00083-02) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 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(b)(1)(B). The Magistrate Judge has submitted findings of fact and recommended that Movant s Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State of Federal Custody be denied; and this civil action be dismissed, with prejudice, and removed from the docket of this Court. Neither party has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge s findings and recommendation. Accordingly, the Court accepts and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and ORDERS that Movant s Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State of Federal Custody be DENIED; and this civil action be DISMISSED, with prejudice, and removed from the docket of this Court, consistent with the findings and recommendation. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to forward copies of this written opinion and order to all counsel of record, and any unrepresented parties. ENTER: August 9, 2011 ROBERT C. CHAMBERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -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.