Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-138 CRIM. ACTION NO. 3:10-CR-77
07-22-2015
CHARLES DERRICK WATKINS, Petitioner-Defendant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Plaintiff.
(BAILEY)
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 John S. Kaull. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Kaull for submission of a proposed report and a recommendation ("R&R"). Magistrate Judge Kaull filed his R&R on June 10, 2015 [Civ. Doc. 7, Crim. Doc. 79], recommending that petitioner's habeas petition [Civ. Doc. 1, Crim. Doc. 67] be denied and dismissed with 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 timely 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 Kaull's R&R were due within fourteen (14) days of receipt, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The docket reflects service was accepted on June 15, 2015 [Civ. Doc. 8, Crim. Doc. 80]. No objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for clear error.
Upon careful review of the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the Report and Recommendation [Civ. Doc. 7, Crim. Doc. 79] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. Accordingly, this Court ORDERS that the petitioner's habeas petition [Civ. Doc. 1, Crim. Doc. 67] be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the respondent and to STRIKE this case from the active docket of this Court.
As a final matter, upon an independent review of the record, this Court hereby DENIES a certificate of appealability, finding that Mr. Watkins has failed to make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
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 petitioner.
DATED: July 22, 2015.
/s/ _________
JOHN PRESTON BAILEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE