Filed: Aug. 25, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 25, 2014
Summary: ORDER DAVID C. NORTON, District Judge. The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that the court recharacterize this 2241 petition as a 2255 motion, and that the motion be filed in petitioner's criminal case, United States v. Blakeley, C/R No. 4:09-cr-229 RBH-6 (D.S.C.) for all further proceedings. It was further recommended that the district court direct the Clerk of Court to open a 2255 action and to lose this 2241 action. This court
Summary: ORDER DAVID C. NORTON, District Judge. The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that the court recharacterize this 2241 petition as a 2255 motion, and that the motion be filed in petitioner's criminal case, United States v. Blakeley, C/R No. 4:09-cr-229 RBH-6 (D.S.C.) for all further proceedings. It was further recommended that the district court direct the Clerk of Court to open a 2255 action and to lose this 2241 action. This court ..
More
ORDER
DAVID C. NORTON, District Judge.
The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that the court recharacterize this § 2241 petition as a § 2255 motion, and that the motion be filed in petitioner's criminal case, United States v. Blakeley, C/R No. 4:09-cr-229 RBH-6 (D.S.C.) for all further proceedings. It was further recommended that the district court direct the Clerk of Court to open a § 2255 action and to lose this § 2241 action.
This court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge's report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, absent prompt objection by a dissatisfied party, it appears that Congress did not intend for the district court to review the factual and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge. Thomas v Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Additionally, any party who fails to file timely, written objections to the magistrate judge's report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to raise those objections at the appellate court level. United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984).1 Petitioner timely filed his reply, stating his agreement with the Report and Recommendation on August 25, 2014.
A de novo review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge's report accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. Accordingly, the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation is AFFIRMED, and the Clerk of Court is directed to re-file petitioner's § 2241 petition as a § 2255 motion in petitioner's criminal case, United States v. Blakeeny, C/R No. 4:09cr-229-RBH-6 (D.S.C.) for all further proceedings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court open a new § 2255 action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the instant case is DISMISSED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
