From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. U.S. Parole Commission

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
Jul 21, 2008
Civil Action No. 2:07cv20 (N.D.W. Va. Jul. 21, 2008)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 2:07cv20.

July 21, 2008


ORDER


It will be recalled that on February 29, 2008, Magistrate Judge Kaull filed his Report and Recommendation, wherein the Petitioner was 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. On March 12, 2008, the Petitioner filed his Motion in Opposition to Opinion/Report Filed 2/29/2008 and Objections of Petitioner to the Opinion/Report and Recommendation.

Upon examination of the report from the Magistrate Judge, it appears to the Court that the issues raised by the Petitioner in his Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for Writ of Assistance, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, wherein Petitioner alleges that the Parole Commission has unfairly denied him parole release, were thoroughly considered by Magistrate Judge Kaull in his Report and Recommendation. Upon consideration of the Petitioner's objections, the Court finds that the Petitioner has not raised any issues that were not throughly considered by the Magistrate Judge in his Report and Recommendation. More particularly, the Court is not required to, and rarely does, stay a case pending ruling in another case. Further, as found by the Magistrate Judge in his Report and Recommendation, this Court does not have the authority to grant the Petitioner relief absent an alleged constitutional violation or other defect in the proceedings, which the Petitioner has not alleged. Therefore, 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 Kaull's Report and Recommendation be, and the same hereby is, accepted in whole and that this civil action be disposed of as recommended by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Petitioner's Motion for Enlargement of Time to File an Amended Petition shall be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. It is further

ORDERED that the Petitioner's § 2241 petition and Motion for Writ of Assistance shall be, and the same hereby are, DENIED. It is further

ORDERED that the above-styled civil action shall be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED with prejudice and stricken from the docket of this Court. It is further

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

ORDERED that, if Petitioner 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, 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), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.


Summaries of

Smith v. U.S. Parole Commission

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
Jul 21, 2008
Civil Action No. 2:07cv20 (N.D.W. Va. Jul. 21, 2008)
Case details for

Smith v. U.S. Parole Commission

Case Details

Full title:BERNARD E. SMITH, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION…

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

Date published: Jul 21, 2008

Citations

Civil Action No. 2:07cv20 (N.D.W. Va. Jul. 21, 2008)