Williams v. Berkebile, No. 5:2009cv00488 - Document 16 (S.D.W. Va. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: adopting the 14 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; ordering that Petitioner's 2 Application Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State or Federal Custody be DISMISSED and stricken from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 10/13/2011. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION JULES L. WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-cv-00488 D. BERKEBILE, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION The Court has reviewed Petitioner s Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State or Federal Custody (Document 2), filed on May 5, 2009. By Order (Document 3) entered on May 5, 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(b)(1)(B). On September 20, 2011, the Magistrate Judge submitted Proposed Findings and Recommendation ( PF&R ) (Document 3) wherein it is recommended that this Court dismiss Petitioner s petition and remove this matter 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). In addition, this Court need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the Court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir.1982). Objections to the PF & R were due by October 7, 2011. No objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 14) be ADOPTED and further ORDERS that Petitioner s Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State or Federal Custody (Document 2) be DISMISSED and STRICKEN 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 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.
