Boatswain v. Ziegler, No. 5:2013cv21468 - Document 23 (S.D.W. Va. 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 21 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge, and ORDERS that the 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 that this matter be REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 9/12/2016. (cc: Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn; attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

Download PDF
Boatswain v. Ziegler Doc. 23 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION FRANK BOATSWAIN, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-cv-21468 JOEL ZIEGLER, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Court has reviewed the 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 August 5, 2013. By Standing Order (Document 3) entered on August 19, 2013, 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. Subsequently, by Order (Document 19) entered on January 6, 2016, the case was referred to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition. On August 15, 2016, Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 21) wherein it is recommended that this Court dismiss the 1 Dockets.Justia.com Petitioner’s 2241 Application and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by September 1, 2016.1 Neither party has timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation. 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). 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 the 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 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 Aboulhosn, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 1 September 12, 2016 The docket reflects that the Proposed Findings and Recommendation mailed to the Petitioner was returned as undeliverable on September 2, 2016. 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.