From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pierce v. Nelson

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, at Bluefield
Feb 4, 2009
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07-00680 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 4, 2009)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07-00680.

February 4, 2009


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER


Pending before the court is petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No. 1.) By Standing Order entered August 1, 2006, and filed in this case on October 29, 2007, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the Standing Order directs Magistrate Judge VanDervort to submit proposed findings and recommendation concerning the disposition of this matter. Magistrate Judge VanDervort submitted his Proposed Findings and Recommendation ("PF R") on January 8, 2009, recommending that this court dismiss the Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and remove this matter from the court's active docket. (Doc. No. 13.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties were allotted ten days, plus three mailing days, in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge VanDervort's PF R. Under § 636(b), the failure of any party to file objections within the appropriate time frame constitutes a waiver of that party's right to a de novo review by this court. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Neither party has filed objections to the PF R, and the time period for doing so has now elapsed.

It appears that petitioner has failed to inform the court of her current address, as required by Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.5, and that she did not receive the copy of the PF R that was sent to her. (See Doc. No. 15.) In the event petitioner wishes to file objections to the PF R at a future date, she should move the court to reopen her case.

Having reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge VanDervort, the court hereby (1) CONFIRMS AND ACCEPTS the findings and conclusions contained therein (Doc. No. 13); (2) DISMISSES the Petition (Doc. No. 1); and (3) DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this action from the court's active docket.

The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to petitioner, pro se, and to all counsel of record.

It is SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Pierce v. Nelson

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, at Bluefield
Feb 4, 2009
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07-00680 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 4, 2009)
Case details for

Pierce v. Nelson

Case Details

Full title:SHIRLEY BEST PIERCE, Petitioner, v. AMBER NELSON, Warden, FPC Alderson…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, at Bluefield

Date published: Feb 4, 2009

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07-00680 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 4, 2009)

Citing Cases

Bushey v. Butler

As the Petitioner herself concedes, this court is very limited in the relief it may grant in reviewing the…