Opinion
Civil Action No.: 9:09-2820-TLW-BM.
August 24, 2010
ORDER
The petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 28, 2009. (Doc. #1). On January 29, 2010, the respondents filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. #24). The petitioner filed a response in opposition on February 18, 2010. (Doc. #30). The petitioner subsequently filed a copy of a letter that was sent to defendant Fulwood regarding the reopening of two prior revocation proceedings on May 18, 2010. (Doc. #33). The respondents filed a copy of a letter that was sent in response on June 1, 2010. (Docs. #34). The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), DSC.
This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by the Magistrate Judge to whom this case had previously been assigned. (Doc. #35). On July 23, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the respondents' motion for summary judgment be granted. (Doc. #35). The petitioner filed no objections to the Report. Objections were due on August 9, 2010.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation 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. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. It is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. #35). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the respondents' motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED. (Doc. #24). All additional motions are dismissed as MOOT. (Doc. #19).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ORDER
The petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 28, 2009. (Doc. #1). On January 29, 2010, the respondents filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. #24). The petitioner filed a response in opposition on February 18, 2010. (Doc. #30). The petitioner subsequently filed a copy of a letter that was sent to defendant Fulwood regarding the reopening of two prior revocation proceedings on May 18, 2010. (Doc. #33). The respondents filed a copy of a letter that was sent in response on June 1, 2010. (Docs. #34). The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), DSC.This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by the Magistrate Judge to whom this case had previously been assigned. (Doc. #35). On July 23, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the respondents' motion for summary judgment be granted. (Doc. #35). The petitioner filed no objections to the Report. Objections were due on August 9, 2010.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation 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. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. It is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. #35). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the respondents' motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED. (Doc. #24). All additional motions are dismissed as MOOT. (Doc. #19).
IT IS SO ORDERED.