Johnson v. Brown ( 2024 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA MARTINSBURG RONALD L. JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:23-CV-247 (GROH) WARDEN BROWN, Respondent. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Now before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble. Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Trumble for submission of a proposed R&R. Magistrate Judge Trumble issued his R&R [ECF No. 24] on September 13, 2024. Therein, Magistrate Judge Trumble recommends that the Petitioner’s § 2241 petition [ECF No. 1] be denied and dismissed without prejudice. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court must conduct a de novo review of the magistrate judge’s findings where 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 to which no objection is made. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and 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). Objections to Magistrate Judge Trumble’s R&R were due within fourteen plus three days of service. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The R&R was mailed to the Petitioner by certified mail on September 13, 2024. ECF No. 24. Despite the Petitioner not updating his address, the Court—in light of prior Fourth Circuit decisions—directed the Clerk to mail copies to the address on the docket and according to the BOP’s inmate locator. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court reviews the R&R for clear error. Upon careful review and thoughtful consideration, it is the opinion of this Court that Magistrate Judge Trumble’s R&R [ECF No. 24] should be, and is hereby, ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated therein. Therefore, the Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 18] is GRANTED, and the Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition [ECF No. 1] is DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This matter is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Court’s active docket. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to TERMINATE as MOOT any other pending Motions and to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested, at his last Known address as reflected on the docket sheet. DATED: November 13, 2024