Filed: Apr. 23, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 23, 2019
Summary: ORDER RANER C. COLLINS , Senior District Judge . On April 2, 2019, Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") in which she recommended the Court dismiss Plaintiff Charles Thompson's Complaint as time-barred. (Doc. 12.) The R&R notified the parties they had fourteen (14) days from the date of the R&R to file any objections. No objections have been filed. If neither party objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the District Court is not re
Summary: ORDER RANER C. COLLINS , Senior District Judge . On April 2, 2019, Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") in which she recommended the Court dismiss Plaintiff Charles Thompson's Complaint as time-barred. (Doc. 12.) The R&R notified the parties they had fourteen (14) days from the date of the R&R to file any objections. No objections have been filed. If neither party objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the District Court is not req..
More
ORDER
RANER C. COLLINS, Senior District Judge.
On April 2, 2019, Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") in which she recommended the Court dismiss Plaintiff Charles Thompson's Complaint as time-barred. (Doc. 12.) The R&R notified the parties they had fourteen (14) days from the date of the R&R to file any objections. No objections have been filed.
If neither party objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the District Court is not required to review the magistrate judge's decision under any specified standard of review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). However, the statute guiding review of a magistrate judge's recommendation "does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard." Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154.
The Court has reviewed and considered the original Petition (Doc. 1), Judge Bowman's screening order (Doc. 4), Respondent's response (Doc. 11), and the R&R (Doc. 12). The Court finds the R&R well-reasoned and agrees with Judge Bowman's conclusions.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED the R&R is ADOPTED (Doc. 12) and Plaintiff's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. §2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Non-Death Penalty) (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court shall docket accordingly and close the case file in this matter.
