Hughes v. Coakley

Full title: TYREZE HUGHES, Petitioner, v. J. COAKLEY, Respondent.

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

Date published: Feb 24, 2016

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-cv-08088 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 24, 2016)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-cv-08088

02-24-2016

TYREZE HUGHES, Petitioner, v. J. COAKLEY, Respondent.

IRENE C. BERGER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On June 22, 2015, the Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Document 1) brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. By Standing Order (Document 4) entered on June 23, 2015, this 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. Subsequently, by Order (Document 6) entered on January 6, 2016, the case was referred to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition.

On February 3, 2016, Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 8) wherein it is recommended that this Court dismiss the Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and remove this matter from the Court's docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by February 22, 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 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (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 Aboulhosn, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.

ENTER: February 24, 2016

/s/_________

IRENE C. BERGER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA