Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:06-CV-27.
March 4, 2008
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert. By Standing Order entered on March 24, 2000, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Seibert for submission of proposed report and a recommendation ("R R"). Magistrate Judge Seibert filed his R R on February 11, 2008 [Doc. 10]. In that filing, the magistrate judge recommended that this Court deny the petitioner's application under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
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 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). Here, objections to Magistrate Judge Seibert's R R were due within ten (10) days after being served with a copy of the R R pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The docket reflects that the petitioner accepted service on February 13, 2008. Accordingly, this Court will review the report and recommendation for clear error.
After review of the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the recommendations of Magistrate Judge Seibert [Doc. 10] should be, and are, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for reasons more fully stated in that report. Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES and DISMISSES with prejudice the petitioner's application under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1].
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record, and to mail a true copy to the pro se petitioner.