Restituyo-Garcia v. Cokley, No. 5:2016cv07323 - Document 14 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 11 Proposed Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and ORDERS that the Petitioner's 1 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 the matter be REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 2/27/2017. (cc: Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn; attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

Download PDF
Restituyo-Garcia v. Cokley Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION DARLYN RESTITUYO-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-cv-07323 WARDEN COKLEY, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On August 8, 2016, the Petitioner, acting pro se, filed his Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody (Document 1). By Standing Order (Document 2) entered on August 9, 2016, the matter was referred to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, 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 January 31, 2017, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 11) wherein it is recommended that this Court dismiss the 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 February 17, 2017. Neither party has timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation.1 The Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the 1 On February 24, 2017, the Court received from the Petitioner a request for status of his case (Document 12). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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 DISMISSED and that the 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: 2 February 27, 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.