Feather-Gorbey v. Warden

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

(CHIEF) COL. MICHAEL S. OWL FEATHER-GORBEY,

Petitioner,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:21-cv-00367

WARDEN, FCI Beckley,

Respondent,

Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:21-cv-00387

(CHIEF) COL. MICHAEL S. OWL FEATHER-GORBEY

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:21-cv-00492

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending are three Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by Petitioner (Chief) Col. Michael S. Owl Feather-Gorbey in the above-styled actions. [Case No. 367, Doc. 2; Case No. 387, Doc. 2; Case No. 492, Doc. 1]. These actions were previously referred to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed the PF&Rs on October 21, 2021 [Case No. 367, Doc. 7; Case No. 387, Doc. 7; Case No. 492, Doc. 8]. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended the Court take the following actions: deny Petitioner’s Applications to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs [Case No. 367, Doc. 1; Case No. 387, Doc. 1; Case No. 492, Doc. 3]; deny Petitioner’s motion for emergency preliminary injunction

or temporary restraining order [Case No. 367, Doc. 3]; dismiss the Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Case No. 367, Doc. 2; Case No. 387, Doc. 2; Case No. 492, Doc. 1]; and allow the matter to remain referred for the consideration of the issue involving the issuance of a pre-filing injunction. Mr. Feather-Gorbey did not object to the PF&Rs. Inasmuch as common questions of law and fact are extant, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), the Court DIRECTS that these actions be CONSOLIDATED. The first styled action above is designated as the lead case, and all future filings shall be made therein.

I. The Court is required “to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court need not 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. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the

report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” (emphasis added)). Further, the Court need not conduct de novo review when a party “makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the Court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Objections were due November 8, 2021. No objections were filed. Il. The Court ORDERS as follows with respect to the above-captioned actions: 1. That the actions be CONSOLIDATED and the first-styled case be designated the lead case, with all future filings being made therein; 2. That the Magistrate Judge’s PF&Rs be ADOPTED [Case No. 367, Doc. 7; Case No. 387, Doc. 7; Case No. 492, Doc. 8]; 3. That Plaintiff's motions for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order be DENIED [Case No. 367, Doc. 3]; 4. That the Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Case No. 367, Doc. 2; Case No. 387, Doc. 2; Case No. 492, Doc. 1] in the lead and consolidated actions be DENIED; and 5. That the cases remain referred to the Magistrate Judge for the sole purpose of the consideration of the issuance of a pre-filing injunction. The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this written opinion and order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party herein.

ENTER: November 17, 2021 FordN Va Came Frank W. Volk “ems United States District Judge