Bodison v. Craig, No. 5:2009cv01287 - Document 7 (S.D.W. Va. 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 5 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge, and ORDERS that Petitioner's 1 2241 Petition be DISMISSED; the Court ORDERS that this matter be removed from the docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 11/20/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION ANTHONY BODISON, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-cv-01287 TODD R. CRAIG, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Court has reviewed Petitioner s Motion for Relief Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a) (Document 1). 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). (Document 2). On November 2, 2012, the Magistrate Judge submitted Proposed Findings and Recommendation ( PF&R ) (Document 5), wherein it is recommended that this Court dismiss this action as moot, in light of the Petitioner s release from custody. 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 in this case were due on November 19, 2012. 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 November 3, 2011. Inasmuch as Petitioner did not provide the Clerk s Office with a forwarding address, the PF&R sent to him was returned as undeliverable. (Document 6.) 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 Section 2241 Petition (Document 1) be DISMISSED. The Court further ORDERS that this matter be removed from the docket. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 November 20, 2012

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.