Opinion
Civil Action 5:23-CV-237
09-06-2023
RODNEY COMPTON, Petitioner, v. R. BROWN, Warden, FCI Gilmer, Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JOHN PRESTON BAILEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The above-captioned case is before this Court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that the petition be denied and dismissed without prejudice.
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 within the prescribed time frame.
Accordingly, a review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge's report accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. As such, the magistrate judge's report and recommendation [Doc. 10] is ADOPTED. Petitioner's petition [Doc. 1] is DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and the Clerk is instructed to strike this matter 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 petitioner.