From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Franklin v. Stewart

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
Dec 6, 2011
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-82 (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 6, 2011)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-82 (BAILEY)

December 06, 2011.


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 David J. Joel [Doc. 8]. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Joel for submission of a proposed report and a recommendation ("R R"). Magistrate Judge Joel filed his RR on November 10, 2011 [Doc. 8]. In that filing, the magistrate judge recommended that this Court deny the petitioner's § 2241 petition [Doc. 1] without prejudice to the petitioner's right to file a Bivens action.

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 Joel'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 docket reflects that service was accepted on November 14, 2011 [Doc. 9]. No objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review the RR for clear error.

Upon careful review of the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 8] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. Accordingly, this Court DENIES WITHOUT PREDJUDICE the petitioner's § 2241 petition [Doc. 1] to the petitioner's right to file a Bivens action.

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.


Summaries of

Franklin v. Stewart

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
Dec 6, 2011
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-82 (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 6, 2011)
Case details for

Franklin v. Stewart

Case Details

Full title:FRANKLIN v. STEWART

Court:United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia

Date published: Dec 6, 2011

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-82 (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 6, 2011)