From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hambric v. Coakley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION
Nov 4, 2016
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-cv-04549 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 4, 2016)

Summary

declining to transfer petition which was clearly untimely

Summary of this case from Deras-Elias v. Wilson

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-cv-04549

11-04-2016

TERRY HAMBRIC, Petitioner, v. JOE COAKLEY, Respondent.


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The Petitioner's, proceeding 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 2) on April 15, 2015. On February 5, 2016, the Respondent filed a Response to Order to Show Cause (Document 20) seeking dismissal of this action.

By Standing Order (Document 4) entered on April 17, 2015, 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 October 13, 2016, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 26) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny the Petitioner's § 2241 Application, grant the Respondent's motion to dismiss, and dismiss this matter from the Court's docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by October 31, 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 the Petitioner's Application Under 28 U .S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State or Federal Custody (Document 2) be DENIED; the Respondent's Response to Order to Show Cause (motion to dismiss) (Document 20) be GRANTED; and this matter be DISMISSED 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: November 4, 2016

/s/_________

IRENE C. BERGER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA


Summaries of

Hambric v. Coakley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION
Nov 4, 2016
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-cv-04549 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 4, 2016)

declining to transfer petition which was clearly untimely

Summary of this case from Deras-Elias v. Wilson
Case details for

Hambric v. Coakley

Case Details

Full title:TERRY HAMBRIC, Petitioner, v. JOE COAKLEY, Respondent.

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

Date published: Nov 4, 2016

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-cv-04549 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 4, 2016)

Citing Cases

Deras-Elias v. Wilson

Given that Petitioner's claims, if construed as a § 2255 motion, would be barred by the statutory period of…