From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Watson

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Martinsburg
Dec 19, 2008
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 3:05-CR-72-2 (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 19, 2008)

Opinion

CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 3:05-CR-72-2.

December 19, 2008


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 June 2, 2008 [Doc. 153], 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 August 18, 2008 [Doc. 160]. In that filing, the magistrate judge recommended that this Court deny the defendant's May 27, 2008, letter which this Court will construe as a Motion for Community Corrections Placement Under the Second Chance Act [Doc. 150] because this Court lacks jurisdiction to do so.

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 Seibert's R R were due within ten (10) days of filing of this same, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). No objections to the R R have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review the report and recommendation for clear error.

Accordingly, upon careful review of the report and recommendation [Doc. 60], it is the opinion of this Court that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. 160] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. As such, the defendant's motion [Doc. 150] is hereby DENIED.

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 defendant.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Watson

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Martinsburg
Dec 19, 2008
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 3:05-CR-72-2 (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 19, 2008)
Case details for

U.S. v. Watson

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. KATHY WATSON, Defendant

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

Date published: Dec 19, 2008

Citations

CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 3:05-CR-72-2 (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 19, 2008)