From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Allen v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION
Jun 24, 2013
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:10-cv-00711 (S.D.W. Va. Jun. 24, 2013)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:10-cv-00711

06-24-2013

TIMOTHY ALLEN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The Court has reviewed 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) filed on May 6, 2010.

By Standing Order (Document 3) entered on May 6, 2010, 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 May 29, 2013, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 5) wherein it is recommended that this Court dismiss the Petitioner's 2241 Application and remove this action from the Court's docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by June 4, 2013 .

The docket reflects that the Proposed Findings and Recommendation that was mailed to the Petitioner was returned as undeliverable on 6/4/13, and re-mailed to a different address on that date. As of June 23, 2013, no objections had been filed.

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 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 this action 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.

____________

IRENE C. BERGER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA


Summaries of

Allen v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION
Jun 24, 2013
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:10-cv-00711 (S.D.W. Va. Jun. 24, 2013)
Case details for

Allen v. United States

Case Details

Full title:TIMOTHY ALLEN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION

Date published: Jun 24, 2013

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:10-cv-00711 (S.D.W. Va. Jun. 24, 2013)

Citing Cases

McCants v. Alderson

Respondent further contends that recent decisions of this court have upheld similar determinations by the…

Barr v. United States

The undersigned agrees with other district courts that have concluded that 28 C.F.R. § 550.55, as applied…