Lucas v. Ferguson, No. 5:2015cv09061 - Document 6 (S.D.W. Va. 2015)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 5 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge, and ORDERS that the Petitioner's 4 Letter-Form Motion for Voluntary Dismissal be GRANTED, the Petitioner's 1 Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs be DENIED, 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 WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and this matter be REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 8/4/2015. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

Download PDF
Lucas v. Ferguson Doc. 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION ANGEL MARIE LUCAS, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-cv-09061 JUDGE ALFRED FERGUSON, et al., Respondents. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On July 1, 2015, the Petitioner filed an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs (Document 1) and an Application Under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State or Federal Custody (Document 2). On July 10, 2015, the Petitioner filed a letter-form Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (Document 4). By Standing Order (Document 3) entered on July 2, 2015, 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. On July 14, 2015, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 5) wherein it is recommended that this Court grant the Petitioner’s letter-form Motion for Voluntary Dismissal, deny the Petitioner’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs, dismiss without prejudice the Petitioner’s Application Under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State or Federal Custody, and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by July 31, 2015. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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 letter-form Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (Document 4) be GRANTED, the Petitioner’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs (Document 1) be DENIED, 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 WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and 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 VanDervort, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 August 4, 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.