Filed: Feb. 08, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 08, 2016
Summary: Memorandum of Opinion and Order PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN , District Judge . INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Greg White (Doc. 11), which recommends dismissal of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pending before the Court. No objections have been filed. For the reasons that follow, the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. STANDARD OF REVIEW When objections are made to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the
Summary: Memorandum of Opinion and Order PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN , District Judge . INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Greg White (Doc. 11), which recommends dismissal of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pending before the Court. No objections have been filed. For the reasons that follow, the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. STANDARD OF REVIEW When objections are made to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the ..
More
Memorandum of Opinion and Order
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN, District Judge.
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Greg White (Doc. 11), which recommends dismissal of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pending before the Court. No objections have been filed. For the reasons that follow, the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When objections are made to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the district court reviews the case de novo. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) provides in pertinent part:
The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall make a de novo determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any portion of the magistrate judge's disposition to which specific written objection has been made in accordance with this rule. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
As stated in the Advisory Committee Notes, "When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." In Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985), the Court held, "It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate judge's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings."
DECISION
The Magistrate Judge determined that Sanders's claims are not cognizable in federal habeas review, and petitioner has not objected to this conclusion. This Court agrees with the reasoning and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge and, having found no clear error, adopts his factual and legal conclusions as its own and incorporates them herein by reference. In accordance with the Report and Recommendation, the Court hereby denies the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Furthermore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
