Henson v. Coakley, No. 5:2014cv19118 - Document 15 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: adopting the 14 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; dismissing Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241, for lack of jurisdiction; removing this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 6/8/2017. (cc: Magistrate Judge Tinsley; attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Henson v. Coakley Doc. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION ROBERT HENSON, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-cv-19118 JOE COAKLEY, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On June 23, 2014, the Petitioner, acting pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Document 1). By Standing Order (Document 4) entered on July 9, 2014, the matter was referred to the Honorable Dwane L. Tinsley, 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 May 19, 2017, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 14) wherein it is recommended that this Court dismiss the Petitioner’s 2241 Petition and this civil action for lack of jurisdiction. Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by June 5, 2017, 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 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Document 1) and this civil action be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction, 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 Tinsley, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 June 8, 2017
]]>
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.
