Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:16-CV-35
10-25-2016
MICHAEL SHINGLER, Petitioner, v. JENNIFER SAAD, Warden, FCI Gilmer, Respondent.
(GROH)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of United States Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Seibert for submission of a proposed R&R. Magistrate Judge Seibert issued his R&R [ECF No. 17] on September 13, 2016. In the R&R, he recommends that the Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition [ECF No. 1] be denied and dismissed with 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). 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 Seibert's R&R were due within fourteen plus three days of the Petitioner being served with a copy of the same. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Service was accepted at the Federal Correctional Institution, Gilmer, on September 16, 2016. Therefore, after allowing for additional time to ensure personal receipt, the Court finds that the deadline for the Petitioner to submit objections to the R&R has passed. 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 Seibert's Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 17] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated therein.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition [ECF No. 1] and ORDERS that it be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Furthermore, the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 13] is DENIED AS MOOT. This matter is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Court's active docket.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment for the Respondent. Because the Petitioner is a federal prisoner seeking relief through a § 2241 petition, the Court makes no certificate of appealability determination in this matter.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record and the pro se Petitioner.
DATED: October 25, 2016
/s/_________
GINA M. GROH
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE