Opinion
Civ. Action No. 1:19-CV-28
06-26-2020
JOHN A. MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. PAUL ADAMS, Respondent.
(Kleeh)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 17]
On February 28, 2019, the pro se Petitioner, John A. Martinez ("Petitioner"), filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Petitioner argues that the Bureau of Prisons violated his due process rights by sanctioning him for possession of drugs without sufficient evidence to support a conviction.
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. The Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 14]. The Petitioner did not respond to the Motion. On June 3, 2020, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), recommending that the Court grant the Respondent's Motion and dismiss the Petition with prejudice.
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 the Petitioner accepted service of the R&R on June 8, 2020. See ECF No. 18. 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. 17]. The Respondent's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 14] is GRANTED. The Petition [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court further ORDERS that this matter be STRICKEN from the Court's active docket and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the Respondent.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to counsel of record via electronic means and to the pro se Petitioner via certified mail, return receipt requested.
DATED: June 26, 2020
/s/_________
THOMAS S. KLEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE