From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Richardson v. Gutierrez

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
May 29, 2008
Civil Action No. 2:07cv2 (N.D.W. Va. May. 29, 2008)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 2:07cv2.

May 29, 2008


ORDER


It will be recalled that on January 12, 2007, Magistrate Judge Kaull filed his Report and Recommendation, wherein the Petitioner was directed, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), to file with the Clerk of Court any written objections within ten (10) days after being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation. No objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation have been filed. Accordingly, the Court will review the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation for clear error.

The failure of a party to object to a Report and Recommendation waives the party's right to appeal from a judgment of this Court based thereon and, additionally, relieves the Court of any obligation to conduct a de novo review of the issues presented. See Wells v. Shriners Hospital, 109 F.3d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1997); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-153 (1985).

Upon examination of the report from the Magistrate Judge, it appears to the Court that the issues raised by the Petitioner in his Petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, wherein Petitioner alleges that the Federal Bureau of Prisons improperly calculated his good conduct time, were thoroughly considered by Magistrate Judge Kaull in his Report and Recommendation. Moreover, the Court, upon a review for clear error, is of the opinion that the Report and Recommendation accurately reflects the law applicable to the facts and circumstances before the Court in this action. Therefore, it is

ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Kaull's Report and Recommendation be, and the same hereby is, accepted in whole and that this civil action be disposed of in accordance with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Petitioner's Petition be, and the same hereby is, DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further

ORDERED that the above-styled action shall be STRICKEN from the docket of this Court. It is further

ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment for the Respondent. It is further

ORDERED that, if Petitioner should desire to appeal the decision of this Court, written notice of appeal must be received by the Clerk of this Court within thirty (30) days from the date of the entry of the Judgment Order, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The $5.00 filing fee for the notice of appeal and the $450.00 docketing fee should also be submitted with the notice of appeal. In the alternative, at the time the notice of appeal is submitted, Petitioner may, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.


Summaries of

Richardson v. Gutierrez

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
May 29, 2008
Civil Action No. 2:07cv2 (N.D.W. Va. May. 29, 2008)
Case details for

Richardson v. Gutierrez

Case Details

Full title:NOEL RICHARDSON, Petitioner, v. DOMINIC A. GUTIERREZ, Warden, Respondent

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

Date published: May 29, 2008

Citations

Civil Action No. 2:07cv2 (N.D.W. Va. May. 29, 2008)