Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 2:02-cr-00165-02.
January 9, 2009
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant's letter-form motion [Docket 101] for post conviction relief under Booker. By Standing Order entered on December 28, 2001, and filed in this case on April 13, 2004, this action was referred to the Honorable Mary E. Stanley, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (PF R). The Magistrate Judge previously submitted her PF R [Docket 118] wherein she recommended that the Court deny the motion for post conviction relief.
The PF R also relates to a § 2555 motion filed in Pratt v. United States, Civil Action 2:04-cv-353, which was previously resolved in 2005.
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 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). In addition, this Court need not conduct a de novo review when a party "makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the Court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations." Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Objections to the PF R were due by September 13, 2005. To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, and DENIES Defendant's motion for post conviction relief [Docket 101].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to the Defendant and counsel, the United States Attorney, and Magistrate Judge Stanley.