Opinion
Civ. Action No. 1:17-cv-182
01-11-2021
SHAWN P. MANNING, Petitioner, v. S. KALLIS, Warden, Respondent.
(Kleeh)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 33]
On October 17, 2017, the pro se Petitioner, Shawn P. Manning ("Petitioner"), filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the legality of his career offender sentence. [ECF No. 1]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the local rules, the Court referred the action to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Aloi for initial review. On August 5, 2020, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), recommending that the Court dismiss the Petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. [ECF No. 33].
Petitioner refiled a signed copy of the petition on October 30, 2017. [ECF No. 7]. --------
The R&R also informed the parties that they had fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the R&R to file "specific written objections, identifying the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis of such objection." It further warned them that the "[f]ailure to file written objections . . . shall constitute a waiver of de novo review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit Court of Appeals." The docket reflects that Petitioner accepted service of the R&R on August 10, 2020. [See ECF No. 34]. To date, no objections have been filed.
When reviewing a magistrate judge's R&R, the Court must review de novo only the portions to which an objection has been timely made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Otherwise, "the Court may adopt, without explanation, any of the magistrate judge's recommendations" to which there are no objections. Dellarcirprete v. Gutierrez, 479 F. Supp. 2d 600, 603-04 (N.D.W. Va. 2007) (citing Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983)). Courts will uphold portions of a recommendation to which no objection has been made unless they are clearly erroneous. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
Because no party has objected, the Court is under no obligation to conduct a de novo review. Accordingly, the Court reviewed the R&R for clear error. Upon careful review, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS the R&R [ECF No. 33]. The petition is DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court ORDERS that this matter be STRICKEN from the Court's active docket and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a separate judgment order.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to Petitioner via certified mail, return receipt requested.
DATED: January 11, 2021
/s/ Thomas S. Kleeh
THOMAS S. KLEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE