Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-CV-35
10-11-2018
NORBERTO DE RIVAS, Petitioner, v. WARDEN 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. 29]. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Mazzone for submission of a proposed report and recommendation ("R&R"). Magistrate Judge Mazzone filed his R&R on September 17, 2018, wherein he recommends petitioner's Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1] be dismissed without prejudice, respondent's construed Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 19] be granted, petitioner's Motion for Return of Personal Property [Doc. 25] be denied without prejudice to his right to file a Bivens action, and petitioner's Motion to Expedite [Doc. 26] be denied as moot.
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 service, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The docket reflects that service was accepted on September 20, 2018 [Doc. 30]. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for clear error.
Upon careful review of the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 29] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. Accordingly, this Court ORDERS that the petitioner's Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1] be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, respondent's construed Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 19] be GRANTED, petitioner's Motion for Return of Personal Property [Doc. 25] be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to his right to file a Bivens action, and petitioner's Motion to Expedite [Doc. 26] be DENIED AS MOOT. This Court further ORDERS that this matter be STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of respondent.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to any counsel of record herein and to mail a copy to the pro se petitioner.
DATED: October 11, 2018.
/s/_________
JOHN PRESTON BAILEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE