From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Perry v. Driver

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Martinsburg
Jun 13, 2008
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:07-CV-103 (N.D.W. Va. Jun. 13, 2008)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:07-CV-103.

June 13, 2008


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS


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 May 22, 2008 [Doc. 27]. In that filing, the magistrate judge recommended that this Court deny the petitioner's application under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

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 within ten (10) days after being served with a copy of the R R pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The docket reflects that service was accepted on May 23, 2008. To date, neither party has filed objections. Accordingly, this Court will review the report and recommendation for clear error.

Having reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's R R, it is the opinion of this Court that the recommendations of Magistrate Judge Seibert [Doc. 27] should be, and are, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the respondent's motion to dismiss [Doc. 17] and DENIES and DISMISSES with prejudice the petitioner's application under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1]. Accordingly, this action is hereby ORDERED STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court. As a final matter, the petitioner's Motion Requesting Evidentiary Hearing [Doc. 26] is hereby DENIED as moot.

It is so ORDERED.

The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record, and to mail a copy to the pro se petitioner.


Summaries of

Perry v. Driver

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Martinsburg
Jun 13, 2008
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:07-CV-103 (N.D.W. Va. Jun. 13, 2008)
Case details for

Perry v. Driver

Case Details

Full title:PAUL F. PERRY, Petitioner, v. JOE D. DRIVER, Warden, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Martinsburg

Date published: Jun 13, 2008

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:07-CV-103 (N.D.W. Va. Jun. 13, 2008)