From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bowen v. Entzel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA WHEELING
Mar 23, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-CV-202 (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 23, 2020)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-CV-202

03-23-2020

EDWARD O'NEAL BOWEN, Petitioner, v. F. ENTZEL, Respondent.


(BAILEY)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On this day, the above-styled matter came before this Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge James P. Mazzone [Doc. 26]. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Mazzone for submission of a proposed report and a recommendation ("R&R"). Magistrate Judge Mazzone filed his R&R on February 27, 2020, wherein he recommends the § 2241 petition be dismissed with prejudice.

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 Mazzone's R&R were due within fourteen (14) days of receipt, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The USPS website indicates the same was delivered on March 2, 2020. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the R&R will be reviewed for clear error.

Upon careful review of the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 26] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. The Respondent's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment [Doc. 15] is GRANTED. Accordingly, the petitioner's § 2241 petition [Doc. 1] is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is DIRECTED to STRIKE this case from the active docket of this Court and to enter judgment in favor of the respondent.

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.

DATED: March 23, 2020.

/s/_________

JOHN PRESTON BAILEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Bowen v. Entzel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA WHEELING
Mar 23, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-CV-202 (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 23, 2020)
Case details for

Bowen v. Entzel

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD O'NEAL BOWEN, Petitioner, v. F. ENTZEL, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA WHEELING

Date published: Mar 23, 2020

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-CV-202 (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 23, 2020)