Opinion
CRIMINAL NO. 1:09CR03.
October 1, 2009
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (dkt. no. 106)
On August 3, 2009, pro se defendant, Joseph Van Sach ("Van Sach"), filed five motions with the Court: 1) "Motion for the Defendant to Challenge the Grand Jury on the Grounds that it was not Lawfully Drawn, Summoned or Selected under F.R.C.P. Rule 6(b)(1)" (dkt. no. 95]); 2) "Motion to Dismiss Video Surveilence [sic] Videotapes without the use of Witness and Victim to the Alleged Charges" (dkt. no. 96); 3) "Motion Challenging Dismissal of the Indictment Based on Selective Prosecution" (dkt. no. 97); 4) "Motion to Dismiss under [sic] the Grounds that the Defendant did not Commit an Offense Against the United States" (dkt. no. 98); and 5) "Motion to Dismiss under [sic] Grounds of Prejudice Against the Defendant" (dkt. no. 99). The Court referred these matters to United States Magistrate Judge John S. Kaull for initial screening and a report and recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
On August 24, 2009, Joseph Van Sach, pro se, and with stand-by counsel Scott Radman, and the United States by its Assistant United States Attorney David Godwin appeared before Magistrate Judge Kaull to resolve the issues raised by Van Sach's motions. After a hearing on the motions, Magistrate Judge Kaull issued an Opinion and Report and Recommendation ("R R"), recommending that all five of Van Sach's motions be denied with prejudice. (dkt. no. 106).
The R R also specifically warned that failure to object to the recommendation within ten days of receipt of the R R would result in the waiver of any appellate rights on this issue. No objections have been filed.
The failure to object to the Report and Recommendation not only waives the appellate rights in this matter, but also relieves the Court of any obligation to conduct a de novo review of the issue presented. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-153 (1985); Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1997).
The Court, therefore, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety (dkt. no. 106), and DENIES Van Sach's 1) "Motion for the Defendant to Challenge the Grand Jury on the Grounds that it was not Lawfully Drawn, Summoned or Selected under F.R.C.P. Rule 6(b)(1)" (dkt. no. 95); 2) Motion to Dismiss Video Surveilence [sic] Videotapes without the use of Witness and Victim to the Alleged Charges" (dkt. no. 96); 3) "Motion Challenging Dismissal of the Indictment Based on Selective Prosecution" (dkt. no. 97); 4) "Motion to Dismiss under [sic] the Grounds that the Defendant did not Commit an Offense Against the United States" (dkt. no. 98); and 5) "Motion to Dismiss under [sic] Grounds of Prejudice Against the Defendant" (dkt. no. 99).
It is so ORDERED.
The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to counsel of record, and to mail a copy to the pro se petitioner, certified mail, return receipt requested.
Exhibit