Filed: Mar. 11, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 11, 2020
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GINA M. GROH , Chief District Judge . Now before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Trumble for submission of a proposed R&R. Magistrate Judge Trumble issued his R&R [ECF No. 25] on February 13, 2020. Therein, Magistrate Judge Trumble recommends the Petitioner's 2241 petition [ECF No. 1] be denied
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GINA M. GROH , Chief District Judge . Now before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Trumble for submission of a proposed R&R. Magistrate Judge Trumble issued his R&R [ECF No. 25] on February 13, 2020. Therein, Magistrate Judge Trumble recommends the Petitioner's 2241 petition [ECF No. 1] be denied a..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
GINA M. GROH, Chief District Judge.
Now before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Trumble for submission of a proposed R&R. Magistrate Judge Trumble issued his R&R [ECF No. 25] on February 13, 2020. Therein, Magistrate Judge Trumble recommends the Petitioner's § 2241 petition [ECF No. 1] be denied and dismissed without prejudice.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court must conduct a de novo review of the magistrate judge's findings where objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge to which no objection is made. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and of a petitioner's right to appeal this Court's Order. 28.U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984).
Objections to Magistrate Judge Trumble's R&R were due within fourteen plus three days of service. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The R&R was mailed to the Petitioner by certified mail on February 13, 2020. ECF No. 25. The Petitioner accepted service on February 18, 2020. ECF No. 26. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for clear error.
Upon careful review of the R&R, it is the opinion of this Court that Magistrate Judge Trumble's R&R [ECF No. 25] should be, and is hereby, ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated therein. Therefore, the Petitioner's § 2241 Petition [ECF No. 1] is DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction [ECF No. 20] is hereby GRANTED.
This matter is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Court's active docket. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested, at his last known address as reflected on the docket sheet.
