Wilson v. F.C.I. Beckley, No. 5:2013cv22469 - Document 12 (S.D.W. Va. 2015)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the 11 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS that the Petitioners 1 Application Under 28 U.S .C. 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person inState or Federal Custody be DENIED; that the Respondents 10 request for judgment in the Respondents favor be GRANTED; and that this action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and REMOVED from the Courts docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 9/10/2015. (cc: USMJ Eifert; attys; any unrepresented party) (msa)

Download PDF
Wilson v. F.C.I. Beckley Doc. 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION MALEAK WILSON, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-cv-22469 TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution-Hazelton, Respondent.1 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On September 3, 2013, the Petitioner filed an Application Under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody (Document 1). On December 9, 2013, the Respondent filed a Response to Order to Show Cause (Document 10) wherein the Respondent moves for dismissal of the Petitioner’s action or, in the alternative, that judgment be entered in favor of the Respondent. By Standing Order (Document 4) entered on September 12, 2013, this action was referred to the Honorable Cheryl A. Eifert, 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 August 21, 2015, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 11) wherein it is recommended 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 1) be denied; that the 1 See Footnote 1 contained in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 11) regarding the party substitution. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Respondent’s request for judgment in the Respondent’s favor (Document 10) be granted; and that this action be dismissed with prejudice and removed from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by September 8, 2015, and none were filed by either party. 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 1) be DENIED; that the Respondent’s request for judgment in the Respondent’s favor (Document 10) be GRANTED; and that this action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and REMOVED from the Court’s docket. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge Eifert, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 September 10, 2015

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.