From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hernandez v. Miller

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Martinsburg
Aug 26, 2008
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:08-CV-59 (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 26, 2008)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:08-CV-59.

August 26, 2008


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS


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 entered on March 24, 2000, 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 July 31, 2008 [Doc. 12]. In that filing, the magistrate judge recommended that this Court deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

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 petitioner's 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 after being served with a copy of the R R pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The docket reflects that service was accepted on August 2, 2008. See Doc. 13. To date, neither party has filed objections. Accordingly, this Court will review the report and recommendation for clear error.

Having reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's R R, it is the opinion of this Court that the recommendations of Magistrate Judge Seibert [Doc. 12] should be, and are, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED. Accordingly, the Court DENIES and DISMISSES without prejudice the petitioner's petition for writ of mandamus [Doc. 1]. Accordingly, this action 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 all counsel of record and to mail a copy to the pro se petitioner.


Summaries of

Hernandez v. Miller

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Martinsburg
Aug 26, 2008
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:08-CV-59 (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 26, 2008)
Case details for

Hernandez v. Miller

Case Details

Full title:ISIDRO RAMIREZ HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. R. MILLER, BOP Officer, Respondent

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

Date published: Aug 26, 2008

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:08-CV-59 (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 26, 2008)