George v. Deboo

Full title: CYRUS GEORGE, Petitioner, v. KUMA J. DEBOO, Respondent

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

Date published: Sep 26, 2011

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-43 (BAILEY) (N.D.W. Va. Sep. 26, 2011)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-43 (BAILEY).

September 26, 2011

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JOHN BAILEY, District Judge

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. 16]. 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 R R on August 31, 2011 [Doc. 16]. In that filing, the magistrate judge recommended that this Court grant the respondent's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 11] and to dismiss the petitioner's § 2241 petition [Doc. 1].

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 September 1, 2011 [Doc. 17]. 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. 16] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 11] should be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. As such, this Court DENIES and DISMISSES WITH PREDJUDICE the petitioner's § 2241 petition [Doc. 1]. Therefore, this matter is hereby ORDERED STRICKEN 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 the pro se petitioner.

Exhibit