Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-29
02-02-2012
ANTONIO OWENS Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
(BAILEY)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of United States Magistrate Judge David J. Joel [Doc. 25]. By Standing Order, entered on March 24, 2000, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Joel for submission of a proposed report and recommendation ("R&R"). Magistrate Judge Joel filed his R&R on January 4, 2012. In that filing, the magistrate judge recommends that this Court grant the respondent's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 15] and deny and dismiss petitioner Antonio Owens' Application for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 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 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 Joel's R&R were due by January 30, 2012, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for clear error.
Upon careful review, it is the opinion of this Court that the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. 25] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated therein. Accordingly, this Court hereby GRANTS the respondent's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 151 and DENIES and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE petitioner Antonio Owens' Application for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1]. As such, this Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the respondent and strike this case from the active docket of this Court.
As a final matter, upon an independent review of the record, this Court hereby DENIES the petitioner a certificate of appealability, finding that he has failed to make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
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.
_____________
JOHN PRESTON BAILEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE