Agostini v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority, No. 5:2008cv00809 - Document 10 (S.D.W. Va. 2011)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING THE PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: adopting the 8 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; dismissing Petitioner's 1 Letter-Form Writ of Habeas Corpus; removing this action from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 7/11/2011. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION JERRY AGOSTINI, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:08-cv-00809 OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING THE PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION The Court has reviewed Petitioner s Letter-Form Writ of Habeas Corpus submitted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed on June 4, 2008. (Document No. 1) By Standing Order entered on June 4, 2008, this action was referred to the Honorable R. Clarke VanDervort, 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. (Document No. 2) On June 20, 2011, the assigned Magistrate Judge submitted his Proposed Findings and Recommendation ( PF&R ) (Document No. 8) wherein he found that the instant case or controversy has been rendered moot by Petitioner s release from custody.1 He has recommended that this Court dismiss the Petitioner s Writ of Habeas Corpus as moot and remove this matter from the Court s docket. 1 Despite stating that a memorandum detailing the grounds for relief accompanied his Letter-Form Writ, the record does not contain any such document. 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). Objections to the PF&R were due on July 8, 2011. To date, Petitioner has not filed any objections or other response to the PF&R. As the Magistrate Judge observed, Petitioner appears to have been released from custody in both West Virginia and Ohio.2 Inasmuch as Petitioner did not provide the Court with his forwarding address, the PF&R sent to him on June 20, 2011, was returned as undeliverable. (Document No. 9) 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 Petitioner s Letter-Form Writ of Habeas Corpus (Document No. 1) be DISMISSED, and that this action be REMOVED from the Court s Docket. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 (See PF&R at 2, n.3.) 2 July 11, 2011

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.