Mayhew v. FCI Beckley, No. 5:2017cv02497 - Document 12 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the 11 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS that the Petitioner's 10 Motion to Dismiss Application Unde r 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 is GRANTED, Petitioner's 1 Section 2241 Application is DISMISSED without prejudice, and this matter is REMOVED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 08/22/2017. (cc: USMJ Aboulhosn; attys; any unrepresented party) (msa)

Download PDF
Mayhew v. FCI Beckley Doc. 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION DAVID C. MAYHEW, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-cv-02497 D. L. YOUNG, Warden, FCI Beckley, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On April 24, 2017, the Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a letter-form Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Document 1). Subsequently, on June 21, 2017, the Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Document 10). By Standing Order (Document 3) entered on April 25, 2017, this action 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 August 1, 2017, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 11) wherein it is recommended that this Court grant the Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, dismiss the Petitioner’s Section 2241 Application without prejudice, and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. Objections to the 1 Dockets.Justia.com Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by August 18, 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 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 Motion to Dismiss Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Document 10) is GRANTED, the Petitioner’s Section 2241 Application (Document 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice, and this matter is 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 August 22, 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.