From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Whittenberg v. Ziegler

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION
May 19, 2015
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-cv-01430 (S.D.W. Va. May. 19, 2015)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-cv-01430

05-19-2015

TIMOTHY WHITTENBERG, Petitioner, v. JOEL ZIEGLER, Respondent.


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On May 7, 2012, the Petitioner filed an Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody (Document 1). By Standing Order (Document 3) entered on May 7, 2012, the action was referred to the Honorable R. Clarke VanDervort, 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 April 28, 2015, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 11) wherein it is recommended that this Court dismiss the Petitioner's 2241 Application and remove this matter from the Court's docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by May 15, 2015.

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 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 DISMISSED and that this matter be REMOVED from the Court's docket.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge VanDervort, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.

ENTER: May 19, 2015

/s/_________

IRENE C. BERGER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA


Summaries of

Whittenberg v. Ziegler

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION
May 19, 2015
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-cv-01430 (S.D.W. Va. May. 19, 2015)
Case details for

Whittenberg v. Ziegler

Case Details

Full title:TIMOTHY WHITTENBERG, Petitioner, v. JOEL ZIEGLER, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION

Date published: May 19, 2015

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-cv-01430 (S.D.W. Va. May. 19, 2015)

Citing Cases

Smith v. Warden, FCI Beckley

(noting that where an inmate challenges BOP RRC placement decisions, the “court is very limited in the relief…

Shade v. Bailey

Additionally, prisoners do not have a protected liberty interest in prerelease custody, such as home…