From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Santiago v. Coakley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA MARTINSBURG
Oct 29, 2018
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:18-CV-110 (N.D.W. Va. Oct. 29, 2018)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:18-CV-110

10-29-2018

MARCUS F. SANTIAGO, Petitioner, v. WARDEN COAKLEY, Respondent.


(GROH)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Trumble for submission of a proposed R&R. Magistrate Judge Trumble issued his R&R [ECF No. 9] on October 4, 2018. In his R&R, Magistrate Judge Trumble recommends that the Petitioner's § 2241 petition [ECF No. 1] be denied and dismissed without prejudice.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court must conduct a de novo review of the magistrate judge's findings where 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 to which no objection is made. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and of a 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).

Objections to Magistrate Judge Trumble's R&R were due within fourteen plus three days of service. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The pro se Petitioner accepted service on October 9, 2018. ECF No. 10. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for clear error.

Upon careful review of the R&R, it is the opinion of this Court that Magistrate Judge Trumble's Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 9] should be, and is hereby, ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated therein. Therefore, the Petitioner's § 2241 Petition is DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Petitioner's Motion for Immediate Release [ECF No. 7] and Motion for an Order Directing Respondent to Show Cause [ECF No. 8] are DENIED.

This matter is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Court's active docket. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to the Petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested, at his last known address as reflected on the docket sheet.

DATED: October 29, 2018

/s/_________

GINA M. GROH

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Santiago v. Coakley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA MARTINSBURG
Oct 29, 2018
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:18-CV-110 (N.D.W. Va. Oct. 29, 2018)
Case details for

Santiago v. Coakley

Case Details

Full title:MARCUS F. SANTIAGO, Petitioner, v. WARDEN COAKLEY, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA MARTINSBURG

Date published: Oct 29, 2018

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:18-CV-110 (N.D.W. Va. Oct. 29, 2018)