From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dobbins v. Deboo

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
Oct 28, 2009
Civil Action No. 2:09cv64 (N.D.W. Va. Oct. 28, 2009)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 2:09cv64.

October 28, 2009


ORDER


It will be recalled that on September 29, 2009, Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert filed his Report and Recommendation, wherein the parties were directed, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), to file with the Clerk of Court any written objections within ten (10) days after being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation. Petitioner filed his objections on October 8, 2009.

Upon examination of the report from the Magistrate Judge, it appears to the Court that the issues raised by the Petitioner in his Petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, wherein Petitioner asserts that the District Court improperly delegated authority to collect restitution to the Bureau of Prisons through the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, and the issues raised by Respondent's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment, were thoroughly considered by Magistrate Judge Seibert in his Report and Recommendation. Upon review of the Petitioner's objections, the Court finds that the Petitioner has not raised any issues that were not already throughly considered and addressed by the Magistrate Judge in his Report and Recommendation. Moreover, the Court, upon an independent de novo consideration of all matters now before it, is of the opinion that the Report and Recommendation accurately reflects the law applicable to the facts and circumstances before the Court in this action. Therefore, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Seibert's Report and Recommendation be, and the same hereby is, accepted in whole and that this civil action be disposed of in accordance with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket #7) shall be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. It is further

ORDERED that the Petitioner's Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 shall be, and the same hereby is, DENIED and DISMISSED with prejudice. It is further

ORDERED that the above-styled action shall be STRICKEN from the docket of this Court. It is further

ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment for the Respondent. It is further

ORDERED that, if a party should desire to appeal the decision of this Court, written notice of appeal must be received by the Clerk of this Court within thirty (30) days from the date of the entry of the Judgment Order, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The $5.00 filing fee for the notice of appeal and the $450.00 docketing fee should also be submitted with the notice of appeal. In the alternative, at the time the notice of appeal is submitted, Petitioner may, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Exhibit


Summaries of

Dobbins v. Deboo

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
Oct 28, 2009
Civil Action No. 2:09cv64 (N.D.W. Va. Oct. 28, 2009)
Case details for

Dobbins v. Deboo

Case Details

Full title:RAYMON I. DOBBINS, Petitioner, v. K. DEBOO, Warden, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia

Date published: Oct 28, 2009

Citations

Civil Action No. 2:09cv64 (N.D.W. Va. Oct. 28, 2009)

Citing Cases

Waggoner v. Garrett

Melot, 2018 WL 11475524 at 8 (quoting Dobbins v. Deboo, 2009 WL 3584004, at 6 (N.D. W.Va. Oct. 28,…

United States v. Ward

Before this court can determine whether Defendant is owed damages, it must determine whether the remedy he…