Opinion
Civil Action No. 5:06-32-JMH.
March 8, 2007
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge James B. Todd [Record No. 25] regarding the petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and on Magistrate Judge Todd's Report and Recommendation regarding the petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order [Record No. 27]. Said action was referred to the magistrate for the purpose of reviewing the merit of Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 [Record No. 4]. Petitioner has not filed objections to either Report and Recommendation, and the deadline for filing objections has passed. Although it is clear that "a judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge," 28 U.S.C. § 636, when, as in the case sub judice, the petitioner fails to file any objections to the Report and Recommendation, "[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).
Consequently, this Court adopts the reasoning set forth in both Reports and Recommendations as its own.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
(1) that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge [Record No. 25] be, and the same hereby is, ACCEPTED;
(2) that Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus [Record No. 4] be, and the same hereby is, DENIED;
(3) that Respondent's motion to dismiss [Record No. 9] be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED;
(4) that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge [Record No. 27] be, and the same hereby is, ACCEPTED;
(5) that Petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order [Record No. 19] be, and the same hereby is, DENIED AS MOOT;
(6) that this action be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and STRICKEN FROM THE ACTIVE DOCKET.