From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shepherd v. U.S.

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
Nov 13, 2007
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07CV27 (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 13, 2007)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07CV27.

November 13, 2007


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


On February 6, 2007, pro se petitioner Robert E. Shepherd filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. On October 30, 2007, United States Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert entered a Report and Recommendation ("R R"), which recommended that this Court deny Shepherd's petition and dismiss the case with prejudice because Shepherd has failed to meet the stringent standards for a writ of mandamus.

The Report and Recommendation also specifically warned that failure to object to the recommendation would result in the waiver of any appellate rights on this issue. No objections were filed.

The failure to object to the Report and Recommendation not only waives the appellate rights in this matter, but also relieves the Court of any obligation to conduct a de novo review of the issue presented. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-153 (1985); Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1997).

Based on the petitioner's failure to object, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and DENIES the Petition for a Writ of Mandamus (Dkt. No. 18). It, therefore, ORDERS that this case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and STRICKEN from the Court's docket.

The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se petitioner, certified mail, return receipt requested and to counsel of record.


Summaries of

Shepherd v. U.S.

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
Nov 13, 2007
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07CV27 (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 13, 2007)
Case details for

Shepherd v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT E. SHEPHERD, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent

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

Date published: Nov 13, 2007

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07CV27 (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 13, 2007)

Citing Cases

Coleman v. Eichenlaub

Because § 2241 is available for petitioner to pursue his claims, an adequate alternative remedy exists and…