Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-22 (BAILEY)
12-12-2013
ROBERT SHROUT, Petitioner, v. EVELYN SEIFERT, Warden, Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On this day, the above-styled matter came before this Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge John S. Kaull [Doc. 21]. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Kaull for submission of a proposed report and a recommendation ("R & R"). Magistrate Judge Kaull filed his R&R on November 18, 2013, wherein he recommends this Court deny the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 15], and that the Respondent be ordered to answer the merits of the petition.
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). In addition, failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the 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). Here, objections to Magistrate Judge Kaull's R&R were due within fourteen (14) days of receipt, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). No objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for clear error.
Upon careful review of the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 21] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. Accordingly, this Court ORDERS that the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 15] be DENIED. Further, this Court hereby ORDERS that the Respondent answer the merits of the petition within twenty-eight (28) days from the entry of this Order.
As a final matter, the petitioner's renewed request for counsel [Doc. 24] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the same reasons set out in Magistrate Judge Kaull's Order dated November 25, 2013 [Doc. 23].
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to any counsel of record and to mail a copy to the pro se petitioner.
______________________
JOHN PRESTON BAILEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE