Summary
stating that because judicial review is precluded, "any substantive decision by the BOP with regard to the petitioner's eligibility for RRC placement, or the length of time in an RRC, is not reviewable by this Court."
Summary of this case from Smith v. WardenOpinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-48 (BAILEY).
October 4, 2011
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David J. Joel. By Local Rule, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Joel for submission of a proposed report and recommendation ("R R"). Magistrate Judge Joel filed his R R on September 12, 2011 [Doc. 16]. In that filing, the magistrate judge recommends that this Court grant the respondent's Motion to Dismiss or, for Summary Judgment [Doc. 8] and dismiss with prejudice the petitioner's § 2241 petition [Doc. 1]. ([Doc. 16] at 14).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), this Court is required to make a de novo review of those portions of the magistrate judge's findings to which 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 as to those portions of the findings or recommendation to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). In addition, failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the 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). Here, objections to Magistrate Judge Joel's R R were due within fourteen (14) days of receipt, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The docket reflects that service was accepted on September 14, 2011. See Doc. 17. 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 the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. 16] should be, and hereby is, ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated therein. As such, this Court hereby GRANTS the respondent's Motion to Dismiss or, for Summary Judgment [Doc. 8]. Accordingly, this Court hereby DENIES and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the petitioner's § 2241 petition [Doc. 1] and ORDERS this matter STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to any counsel of record and to mail a copy to the pro se petitioner.
Exhibit