Wade v. Ballard

Full title: JASON L. WADE, Petitioner, v. DAVID R. BALLARD, Warden, Respondent.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA MARTINSBURG

Date published: Dec 4, 2012

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-82 (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 4, 2012)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-82

12-04-2012

JASON L. WADE, Petitioner, v. DAVID R. BALLARD, Warden, Respondent.

GINA M. GROH

(JUDGE GROH)

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 David J. Joel [Doc. 15]. By Standing Order, entered on March 24, 2000, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Joel for submission of a proposed report and recommendation ("R&R"). Upon his initial review, Magistrate Judge Joel filed his R&R on November 7, 2012. In that filing, the magistrate judge recommends that this Court dismiss the Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. §2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 2] without prejudice.

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 Joel's R&R were due by November 30, 2012. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for clear error.

Upon careful review of the record, it is the opinion of this Court that the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. 15] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated therein. Accordingly, the Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 2] is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This Court DIRECTS the Clerk to strike this case from the active docket of this Court.

It is so ORDERED.

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

______________________

GINA M. GROH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE