Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-57 CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 3:11-CR-47-3
04-16-2014
DONNELL SYLVESTER PARKER, Petitioner-Defendant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Plaintiff.
(Judge Bailey)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
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 Local Rule, 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 March 12, 2014 [Doc. 8]. In that filing, the magistrate judge recommended that this Court dismiss with prejudice the petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on the grounds that the petitioner failed to meet the Strickland test and demonstrate that AFPD Compton rendered ineffective assistance of counsel at any point during the proceeding and petitioner knowingly and intelligently entered into a plea agreement that waived some of these claims. Additionally, the magistrate judge recommended that the petitioner's claims based on the Alleyne case is not applicable in the sentencing issue raised by the petitioner, and that the same sentencing issue was addressed on appeal and therefore may not be considered on collateral review [Doc. 8 at 21].
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 Seibert's R&R were due within fourteen (14) days of receipt, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). The docket sheet reflects that service was accepted on March 17, 2014 [Doc. 9]. To date, no objections have been filed.
Upon careful review of the report and recommendation, it is the opinion of this Court that the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. 8] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. As such, this Court hereby DISMISSES with prejudice the petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Therefore, this matter is hereby ORDERED STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court. The Clerk is directed to enter a separate judgment in favor of the defendants.
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
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE