From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gordon v. Stine

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Martinsburg
Sep 11, 2008
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:07-CV-89 (BAILEY) (N.D.W. Va. Sep. 11, 2008)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:07-CV-89 (BAILEY).

September 11, 2008


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert. By Standing Order, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Seibert for submission of a proposed report and a recommendation ("R R"). Magistrate Judge Seibert filed his R R on August 13, 2008 [Doc. 33]. In that filing, the magistrate judge recommended that this Court deny and dismiss with prejudice 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 Seibert's R R were due within ten (10) days of receipt, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The docket indicates that the petitioner accepted service of the R R on August 18, 2008. See Doc. 34. No objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review the report and recommendation for clear error.

Upon careful review of the report and recommendation, it is the opinion of this Court that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. 33] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. Accordingly, this Court hereby DENIES and DISMISSES with prejudice the petitioner's § 2241 petition. 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.


Summaries of

Gordon v. Stine

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Martinsburg
Sep 11, 2008
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:07-CV-89 (BAILEY) (N.D.W. Va. Sep. 11, 2008)
Case details for

Gordon v. Stine

Case Details

Full title:LEBERT A. GORDON, Petitioner, v. D. L. STINE, Warden, Respondent

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

Date published: Sep 11, 2008

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:07-CV-89 (BAILEY) (N.D.W. Va. Sep. 11, 2008)