Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-99
11-27-2017
THUAN M. PHAM, Petitioner, v. JENNIFER SAAD, Warden Respondent.
(BAILEY)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On this day, the above-styled matter came before this Court for consideration of the Amended Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert [Doc. 18]. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Seibert for submission of a proposed report and recommendation ("R&R"). Magistrate Judge Seibert filed his Amended R&R on November 1, 2017, wherein he recommends this Court deny the petitioner's § 2241 petition and dismiss the petition without prejudice.
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 Amended R&R were due within fourteen (14) days of service, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The docket reflects that service was accepted on November 7, 2017 [Doc. 21]. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review the Amended R&R for clear error.
Upon careful review of the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the Amended Report and Recommendation [Doc. 18] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. Accordingly, this Court ORDERS that the petitioner's Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1] be DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This Court further ORDERS that this matter be STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the respondent. The Clerk is further DIRECTED to terminate the original Report and Recommendation [Doc. 17], which is identical to the Amended Report and Recommendation which the exception of a clerical error as to the petitioner's name in the introduction section.
As a final matter, upon an independent review of the record, this Court hereby DENIES a certificate of appealability, finding that the petitioner 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 herein and to mail a copy to the pro se petitioner.
DATED: November 27, 2017.
/s/_________
JOHN PRESTON BAILEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE