Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:06-CV-125.
October 5, 2007
ORDER
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 September 6, 2007 [Doc. 17]. In that filing, the magistrate judge recommended that this Court dismiss as moot the petitioner's application under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [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 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 September 20, 2007 [Doc. 17], pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Neither party filed objections to the R R. Accordingly, this Court will review the report and recommendation for clear error.
In filing his petition, the petitioner's ultimate goal was to spend the last six months of his sentence at a halfway house or home confinement. The magistrate conducted an investigation of the BOP inmate locator and discovered that the petitioner was released from custody on September 4, 2007. Accordingly, the petitioner can no longer benefit from the requested relief, and the case is now moot.
Therefore, upon careful review of the R R, it is the opinion of this Court that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. 17] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. Therefore, the respondent's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 14] is DENIED as moot. Accordingly, the Court hereby DISMISSES as moot the petitioner's application under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1] and ORDERS it STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to mail true copies of this Order to all counsel of record and the pro se petitioner.