Fulton v. Felts

Full title: WILLIE FULTON, Petitioner, v. CHARLES T. FELTS, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Beckley Division

Date published: Jan 20, 2009

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:06-cv-00010 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 20, 2009)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:06-cv-00010.

January 20, 2009

MEMORANDUM OPINION

THOMAS JOHNSTON, District Judge

Pending before the Court are Petitioner's Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [Docket 2] and Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State or Federal Custody [Docket 1]. By Standing Order entered on July 2, 2004, and filed in this case on January 6, 2006, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (PF R). Magistrate Judge VanDervort filed his PF R [Docket 6] on December 19, 2008, recommending that this Court DENY Petitioner's application to proceed in Forma Pauperis, DISMISS as moot Petitioner's 2241 application, and remove this matter from the Court's docket.

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). In addition, failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and Petitioner's right to appeal this Court's Order. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). Here, objections to Magistrate Judge VanDervort's PF R were due by January 9, 2009, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). To date, no objections have been filed.^_

_ The Court notes that on December 12, 2008, the PF R was returned to the Clerk's Office as undeliverable. Because Petitioner has not kept the Court apprised of his address, he has failed to comply with this Court's local rules. See LR Civ. P. 83.5 ("A pro se party must advise the clerk promptly of any changes in name, address, and telephone number.").

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF R [Docket 6] in its entirety, DENIES Petitioner's application to proceed in Forma Pauperis [Docket 2], and DISMISSES as moot Petitioner's Application under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State or Federal Custody [Docket 1]. A separate Judgment Order will enter this day implementing the rulings contained herein.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.