Patterson v. Young, No. 5:2016cv12560 - Document 11 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: adopting the 10 Proposed Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; dismissing without prejudice Petitioner's 1 Application; removing this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 10/26/2017. (cc: Magistrate Judge Eifert; attys; any unrepresented party) (btm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Patterson v. Young Doc. 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION JUAN DASHA PATTERSON, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-cv-12560 D. L. YOUNG, Warden, FCI Beckley, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On December 27, 2016, the Petitioner, proceeding 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 5) entered on December 28, 2016, the matter 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 September 27, 2017, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 10) wherein it is recommended that the Petitioner’s Application (Document 1) be dismissed without prejudice, and that this matter be removed from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by October 16, 2017. 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 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 (Document 1) be DISMISSED without prejudice, 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 Eifert, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 October 26, 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.
