From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Gortman

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Martinsburg
Feb 18, 2009
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:02-CR-11-7 (BAILEY) (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 18, 2009)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:02-CR-11-7 (BAILEY).

February 18, 2009


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


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 a proposed report and a recommendation ("R R"). Magistrate Judge Seibert filed his R R on January 16, 2009 [Doc. 316]. In that filing, the magistrate judge recommended that Defendant's Motion for the Court to Order the Government to Disclose Grand Jury Transcripts and Debriefing Statements [Doc. 200] be DENIED.

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 of receipt of the R R, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The docket shows defendant accepted service of the R R on January 20, 2009. Neither party filed objections to the R R. Accordingly, this Court will review the report and recommendation for clear error.

Upon careful review of the R R, it is the opinion of this Court that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. 316] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendant's Motion for the Court to Order the Government to Disclose Grand Jury Transcripts and Debriefing Statements [Doc. 200] be DENIED.

It is so ORDERED.

The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record herein and to mail a copy to the pro se plaintiff.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Gortman

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Martinsburg
Feb 18, 2009
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:02-CR-11-7 (BAILEY) (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 18, 2009)
Case details for

U.S. v. Gortman

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ARTHUR COREY GORTMAN, Defendant

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

Date published: Feb 18, 2009

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:02-CR-11-7 (BAILEY) (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 18, 2009)