Williams v. Beckebile, No. 5:2009cv00175 - Document 16 (S.D.W. Va. 2011)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: adopting the 14 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; ordering that the Petitioner's Application be DISMISSED and that this matter be REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 10/13/2011. (cc: Magistrate Judge VanDervort; attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION JULES LAMONT WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-cv-00175 DAVID BECKEBILE, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION The Court has reviewed the Petitioner s February 25, 2009 Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody (Document 3), brought on the grounds that his due process rights were violated when he was sanctioned the loss of twentyseven (27) days of his good time credit. By Standing Order (Document 4) entered on February 25, 2009, 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. On September 20, 2011, the Magistrate Judge submitted Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 14) wherein it is recommended that this Court dismiss Petitioner s Application and remove this mater from the Court s docket. 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). Magistrate Judge VanDervort advised the parties that any objections to the PF&R were due within seventeen (17) days of the filing of his proposed findings and recommendation. To date, no party has filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge s Proposed Findings and Recommendation. As noted in the PF&R, Petitioner appears to have been released from custody on May 5, 2010. The PF&R was sent to his last known address, but was returned as undeliverable on September 26, 2011 (Document 15). No current address is available for this Defendant. 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 Application 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 VanDervort, to counsel of record and to any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 October 13, 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.