Opinion
1:24-CV-373-RP
07-15-2024
JEFFREY STEVEN RUDLUFF, Petitioner, v. WARDEN G. ROSALEZ, Respondent.
ORDER
ROBERT PITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Petitioner Jeffrey Steven Rudluff's (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Dkt. 1). The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower for findings and recommendations, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Judge Hightower filed her report and recommendation on May 14, 2024. (Dkt. 5). In her report and recommendation, Judge Hightower recommends that the Court dismiss Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as an abuse of the writ. (Id. at 3). Petitioner received the report and recommendation no later than May 16, 2024, (Dkt. 7), and moved for an extension of time to respond on May 20, 2024, (Dkt. 8), which the Court granted via text order, extending his time to respond until July 8, 2024. On July 8, 2024, Petitioner filed a motion to withdraw his petition without prejudice. (Dkt. 9). The Court construes Petitioner's motion to withdraw his petition as a notice of non-objection to the report and recommendation.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), a party may serve and file specific, written objections to a magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and recommendation and, in doing so, secure de novo review by the district court. When no objections are timely filed, a district court can review the magistrate's report and recommendation for clear error. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note (“When no timely objection is filed, the [district] court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”).
Because no party has filed timely objections, the Court reviews the report and recommendation for clear error. Having done so and finding no clear error, the Court accepts and adopts the report and recommendation as its own order.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, (Dkt. 5), is ADOPTED.
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Dkt. 1), is DISMISSED as an abuse of the writ.
Petitioner is WARNED that any future abusive filings will result in the imposition of sanctions, including monetary sanctions and restrictions on his ability to file future pleadings in this Court.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Petitioner's motion to withdraw his petition without prejudice, (Dkt. 9), is MOOT.