Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-cv-25050
09-14-2016
ROBERT HENRY NELSON, III Petitioner, v. JORDAN HOLLINGSWORTH, Warden, FCI - Fort Dix, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On August 25, 2014, the Petitioner, acting 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). Subsequently, on October 20, 2014, the Respondent filed his Response to Order to Show Cause (Document 7) seeking dismissal of the Petitioner's Application.
By Standing Order (Document 4) entered on August 26, 2014, this action 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 August 23, 2016, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 15) wherein it is recommended that this Court: 1) deny the Petitioner's Application Under 28 U .S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody; 2) grant the Respondent's Response to Order to Show Cause seeking dismissal of the Petitioner's Application; and 3) dismiss this action with prejudice and remove it from the Court's docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by September 9, 2016.
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: 1) 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 DENIED; 2) the Respondent's Response to Order to Show Cause seeking dismissal of the Petitioner's Application (Document 7) be GRANTED; and 3) this action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and 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: September 14, 2016
/s/_________
IRENE C. BERGER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA