Opinion
Civil Action 1:21-CV-101
10-14-2021
VICTOR CALLES, Petitioner, v. WARDEN R.M. WOLFE, Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JOHN PRESTON BAILEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Presently pending before this Court is petitioner's Motion to Withdraw [Doc. 12], filed September 24, 2021. Therein, petitioner concedes that 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is the "improper method in which to attack [his] erroneous classification as both a gang member and a sex offender." See [Doc. 12 at 1 ]. Petitioner requests to withdraw his motion and also requests a copy of his original 28 U.S.C. § 2241 motion and an in forma pauperis form. See [Id.]. Because it is common practice for prisoners to receive a disfavorable Report and Recommendation and then seek to withdraw their pending § 2241 motion, this Court DENIES petitioner's Motion to Withdraw [Doc. 12].
Also pending before this Court is the magistrate judge's recommendation that petitioner's § 2241 petition [Doc. 1] be denied and dismissed.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge's report 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(b)(1). However, absent prompt objection by a dissatisfied party, it appears that Congress did not intend for the district court to review the factual and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Additionally, any party who fails to file timely, written objections to the magistrate judge's report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to raise those objections at the appellate court level. United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984). No. objections have been filed to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
A de novo review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge's report accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. Accordingly, the magistrate judge's report and recommendation [Doc. 10] is AFFIRMED, and petitioner's Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED and DISMISSED. This Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the respondent and to STRIKE this case from the active docket of this Court.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy to petitioner of (1) his original 28 U.S.C. § 2241 motion and (2) an in forma pauperis form.
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.